
































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































64th Congress, ) HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, j Document 
1st Session. j [ No. 463. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE 

MOUTH. 

- ilL 

LETTER 

FROM 

THE SECRETARY OF WAR, 


TRANSMITTING, 

WITH A LETTER FROM THE CHIEF OF ENGINEERS, REPORT ON 
REEXAMINATION OF MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, 
MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


January 4, 1916. —Referred to the Committee on Rivers and Harbors and ordered 
to be printed, with illustrations. 

1A* j t ' 

War Department, 
Wash^nton, December 17, 1915. 
The Speaker of the House of Repres. natives. 

Sir : I have the honor to transmit herewith ^ letter from the Chief 
of Engineers, United States Army, of this date, together with copy of 
a report from Lieut. Col. Herbert Deakyne, Corps of Engineers, dated 
April 22, 1915, on reexamination of the Missouri River, from 
Kansas City, Mo., to the mouth, made by him in compliance with the 
provisions of the river and harbor act approved March 4, 19U. 

Very respectfully, 

Lindley M. Garrison, 

Secretary of War. 


War Department, 

Office of the Chief of Engineers, 

Washington, December 17, 1915. 
From: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army. 

To: The Secretary of War. 

Subject: Reexamination of the Missouri River, Kansas City to mouth. 

1. There is submitted herewith for transmission to Congress report 
dated April 22, 1915, by Lieut. Col. Herbert Deakyne, Corps of 









2 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

Engineers, on reexamination of the project for improvement of Mis¬ 
souri River, Mo., mouth to Kansas City, directed by the river and 
harbor act approved March 4, 1915. 

2. The existing project was formally adopted by the act of July 25, 
1912, although the first appropriation was made by the act of June 
25, 1910. The project provides for securing a permanent channel 
6 feet deep between Kansas City and the mouth, at an estimated cost 
of $20,000,000, to be completed, except for maintenance, in 10 years. 
The work includes the removal of snags and the regulation and con¬ 
traction of the channel by means of bank revetment and dikes. 
The estimated cost of maintenance of the completed project is 
$500,000 per year. There has been appropriated or allotted for this 
work a total of $6,250,000 in six years, or at the rate of a little more 
than $1,000,000 a year, while the project calls for $2,000,000 a year. 
The district officer analyzes the project on the basis of cost and bene¬ 
fits, and expresses the opinion that present and reasonably prospec¬ 
tive commerce is not sufficient to warrant its continuance. He 
recommends that the present project be modified so as to provide for 
snagging alone, at an estimated cost of $40,000 per year, and that all 
other work be stopped. The division engineer concurs with the dis¬ 
trict officer as to the discontinuance of the present project for per¬ 
manent work, but believes that the work already done should not be 
completely abandoned, and he recommends an annual appropriation 
of $150,000 for snagging and the maintenance of existing work. 

3. This report has been referred, as required by law, to the Board 
of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and attention is invited to its 
report herewith,, dated December 8, 1915. On account of the im¬ 
portance of the subject, the board made a personal inspection of the 
river and held a public hearing at Kansas City on October 19 and 20, 
1915. The board finds that the general method of improvement is well 
adapted to this stream and if systematically applied under adequate 
appropriations, will result in a permanent channel depth of 6 feet 
or more. The board suggests the temporary use of dredging at a few 
of the most obstructive crossings to facilitate low-water navigation 
while the permanent work is under construction. The board believes 
that if any improvement is undertaken aside from snagging it should 
be under the plan of complete improvement contemplated by the 
existing project. 

4. At the time the adoption of the present project was under con¬ 
sideration, and with the understanding that improvement of the river 
would follow the establishment of actual navigation of a substantial 
character, a number of shippers and other business men of Kansas 
City organized a company for the purpose of operating a line of boats 
especially designed to meet the requirements of navigation on this 
river. The company has adopted the towboat and barge method of 
navigation and has taken steps to remedy certain conditions that 
have contributed largely to the decline of transportation on our 
western rivers. It uses terminal facilities at Kansas City and East 
St. Louis, having mechanical devices for transfer of freight, and these 
terminals have direct rail connections, thereby facilitating the transfer 
of freight from rail to boat or vice versa. It is handling commerce 
on through bills of lading under joint traffic arrangements with 
connecting rail and water carriers. It receives and delivers goods 
in cars on shippers' sidings, paying switching charges within certain 

D. Of ,De 
APR 8 1916 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 3 

. limits, transferring to and from the boat, assuming carriers’ risk in 
lieu of marine insurance and transporting between terminals, all at a 
rate of 80 per cent of the corresponding rail rate. It has been building 
up a traffic and operating at some loss upon a river that is largely 

J unimproved, but it claims that the results already attained show that 
the traffic would be eminently successful upon an improved river. 

5. Another change in commercial conditions since the adoption of 
this project, upon which considerable stress is laid, is found in the 
readjustment of transcontinental rail rates, resulting from traffic 
through the Panama Canal. It is claimed that this handicaps the 
manufacturers in the interior of the country and that they need the 
compensating advantage of cheap water routes to the sea. 

6. The board states that a review of the entire situation indicates 
that the present grounds for continuance of this project are stronger 
than those which led to its adoption, and it therefore concludes that 
it is advisable for the United States to continue the improvement of 
the Missouri River between Kansas City and the mouth in accordance 
with the existing project. 

7. After due consideration of the above-mentioned reports, I concur 
in the views of the Board of Engineers for Rivers ana Harbors, and 
therefore report that it is not deemed advisable to abandon the exist¬ 
ing project for improvement of Missouri River, Mo., mouth to Kansas 
City. The occasional use of dredging as suggested by the board is 
considered advisable, and it is therefore recommended that such work 
be authorized in connection with this project. 

Dan C. Kingman, 

Chief of Engineers , United States Army. 


REPORT OF THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS. 

[Third indorsement.] 

Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, 

December 8, 1915. 

To the Chief of Engineers, United States Army : 

1. The following is the review of the district officer’s report sub¬ 
mitted under authority of section 14 of the river and harbor act of 
March 4, 1915, on reexamination of “ Missouri River, mouth to Kansas 
City,” with a view to determining whether the project shall be 
modified or the improvement abandoned. 

2. The existing project was formally adopted by the act of July 25, 
1912, although the first appropriation was made by the act of June 25, 
1910, as explained by the district officer. The project provides for 
securing a permanent channel 6 feet deep between Kansas City and the 
mouth, at an estimated cost of $20,000,000, to be completed, except 
for maintenance, in 10 years. The work includes the removal of snags 
and the regulation and contraction of the channel by means of bank 
revetment and dikes. The estimated cost of the maintenance of the 
completed project is $500,000 per year. 

3. There has been appropriated or allotted for this work a total of 
$6 250 000 in 6 years, or at the rate of a little more than $1,000,000 
a vear, while the project calls for $2,000,000 a year. The expendi¬ 
tures to March 4, 1915, were $2,577,290.85, of which sum $291,208.26 

\ 



4 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

were applied to maintenance and about $597,000 were used in pro¬ 
curing suitable plant. Experience leads the district officer to believe 
that the project can be completed at the estimated cost, if appropria¬ 
tions are made at the rate of $2,000,000 a year for construction with 
sufficient amounts for maintenance, but that at the present rate it 
will require over 20 years to finish the work. 

4. The commerce for 1913 is reported as amounting to 347,235 tons, 
of which 309,684 tons consisted of sand, gravel, and logs, reported as 
not being benefited by improvement, leaving 37,537 tons of water¬ 
borne commerce affected by the project. 

5. The district officer analyzes the project on the basis of cost and 
benefit, and expresses the opinion that present and reasonably pros¬ 
pective commerce is not sufficient to warrant its continuance. He 
repeats what has been stated in former reports, that any attempt at 
partial improvement will be futile, and if the river is improved at all, 
the work should be complete as to the protection of banks and control 
of channel. He believes that snagging should be continued, and 
recommends that the present project be modified so as to provide for 
snagging alone, at an estimated cost of $40,000 per year, and that all 
other work be stopped. 

6. The division engineer is in accord with the district officer as 
to the discontinuance of the present project for permanent work, but 
believes that the work already done should not be completely aban¬ 
doned. He recommends an annual appropriation of $150,000 for 
snagging and the maintenance of existing works. 

7. Interested parties were informed of the district officer’s un¬ 
favorable report and were given an opportunity of submitting their 
views to the board. A number of communications were received, 
and request was made for a hearing, which was given by the board at 
Kansas City, on October 19 and 20, after personal examination of 
the river from Kansas City to Washington, a distance of about 320 
miles. This hearing was attended by a large number of deeply in¬ 
terested persons, including representatives from Nebraska, Kansas, 
Missouri, Minnesota, Illinois, and Louisiana. A record of the hearing 
is appended hereto. 

8. The method of improvement under the present project is the 
result of many years of experimental work at considerable cost. The 
simplest and most inexpensive structures were first tried and gradually 
through experience these were modified and strengthened, resulting 
finally in a standard form that with slight changes has been followed 
in recent years with a reasonable measure of success. It is believed 
that the systematic application, under adequate appropriations, of 
the general principles and methods followed under the existing 
project, with such modifications of detail as further experience may 
develop will result in a continuous and permanent channel 6 feet or 
more in depth. It may be desirable from time to time not only to 
modify details of construction, but also possibly to supplement the 
permanent work while under construction by the temporary use of a 
shallow draft dredge to cut through a few of the most obstructive 
crossings in order to facilitate low-water navigation. It is under¬ 
stood that the existing project is sufficiently elastic to permit such 
minor modifications with the approval of the Chief of Engineers. It 
has often been reported, and the Board desires to repeat here, that 
any project of iess scope would be inadequate to secure a permanent 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 5 


6-foot channel and if any improvement is undertaken, aside from 
snagging, it should be under the present plan of complete improve¬ 
ment, at a probable total cost ot not less than $20,000,000. 

9. A matter considered of great importance in connection with the 
present investigation is the existence of the recently organized Kansas 
City (Mo.) River Navigation Co. This company was incorporated 
in 1909 with a capital stock of $1,202,000, of which more than a 
million has been collected in cash. It is claimed by those interested 
that the incorporation and operations of this navigation company were 
undertaken as the result of an understanding with the River and 
Harbor Committee of the House of Representatives, that the project 
for the improvement of the Missouri River from Kansas City to the 
mouth would be adopted and vigorously prosecuted under adequate 
appropriations, provided the locality first show its faith in the im¬ 
portance and necessity for the improvement by the expenditure of its 
own funds in the actual establishment of commerce on the river. 
Navigation was commenced in 1911, with cortain plant secured by 
purchase, and at the same time it was decided to investigate the 
types of boats best suited to successful and economical use on the 
Missouri River. The services of experts were secured and careful 
study of navigation on shallow-draft rivers was made, resulting in the 
adoption of the towboat and barge method of navigation with im¬ 
proved steel vessels of fire-proof construction and suitable size, draft, 
and motive power for the Missouri River. These investigations have 
been carried on at considerable expense and have far more than local 
value, as they contribute very substantially to the solution of the 
important problems of economical transportation on this and other 
inland waters of the United States. The company is satisfied with 
the progress made, and it proposes to continue the investigations and 
study, with its increasing activities, and to utilize the results in the 
construction of additional plant from time to time. The results of 
these investigations are furnished without charge to other cities con¬ 
templating the establishment of transportation lines. 

10. The company has taken steps to remedy certain conditions 
that have contributed largely to the decline of river transportation. 
It has secured the establishment of terminal facilities at Kansas City 
and at East St. Louis, having rail connection at both places and 
mechanical devices for the transfer of freight. It has entered into 
joint traffic arrangements for the interchange of freight with connect¬ 
ing carriers, both rail and water, and is now handling commerce on 
through bills of lading. It receives and delivers goods in cars on 
shippers sidings, paying switching charges within , certain limits, 
transferring to and from the boat, assuming carriers’ risk in lieu of 
marine insurance, and transporting between terminals, all at a rate 
of 80 per cent of the corresponding rail rate. The present floating 

E lant consists of 1 steel packet boat, 2 steel towboats, and 12 steel 
arges. These barges are of varying sizes, the larger ones, provided 
with steel fire-proof, weather-proof, and locked deckhouses, being 
used for through commerce, and the smaller for either through or 
local business, in the latter case the barges being left at way land¬ 
ings for loading, and being picked up by the next boat up or down, 
depending upon the destination of the cargo. So far the traffic 
receipts of the company have not fully covered operating costs, but 


6 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

the company has been operating on an unimproved river and build¬ 
ing up a traffic in face of considerable difficulties. It claims to have 
demonstrated that the traffic will be eminently successful on an 
improved river. This year, 1915, up to October 1, freights col¬ 
lected would have more than covered operating costs had not a 
barge been accidently sunk at its East St. Louis wharf. 

11. This company is making the most thorough attempt within 
the knowledge of the board to revive a river traffic that had disap¬ 
peared under railway competition. It appears to be sparing no 
expense or effort that will contribute to the solution of this problem, 
and it claims as a result of its experience, that success is attainable 
if a permanent 6-foot channel is provided. A continuance of the 
experiment under as favorable river conditions as can be secured is 
worth much to the United States, and should go far toward showing 
what are the real possibilities in this important field of the transpor¬ 
tation problem in this country. 

12. The commerce handled by this company is still comparatively 
small, but has been increasing rapidly since its organization. During 
the current year, up to October 1, it amounted to 27,306 tons, and 
it is expected that by the end of the navigation season it will be 
somewhat in excess of 33,000 tons, or about two and one half times 
the amount in 1914. This does not include the traffic carried by 
local boat lines operating at different points along the river, inde¬ 
pendently of the Kansas City (Mo.) Kiver Navigation Co., which 
amounted to about 27,000 tons in 1913. 

13. It is difficult to determine what may be the future water¬ 
borne commerce of this river, and neither the past nor the present 
volume should in fairness be used as a measure of what to expect 
in the future. The improvement so far effected in the channel is 
sufficient to show what can be done by the engineering methods 
adopted, but, excepting in the removal of snags, it has not pro¬ 
gressed far enough to afford a very material betterment of channel 
depths, excepting in disconnected improved sections. The boats 
can not be loaded to their full capacity, and even light find diffi¬ 
culty at many shoal crossings. Schedule time can not be made 
and delays in delivery have tended to discourage shippers. Not¬ 
withstanding this, there is apparent an enthusiastic determination 
on the part of the navigation company and of the shippers to push 
their present endeavors to a successful conclusion, provided the 
United States continue the work of improvement under the existing 
project. Many individual shippers at Kansas City have given evi¬ 
dence that they intend to patronize the boat line as far as practicable, 
and that the extent of water-borne traffic will be in proportion to 
the amount of work done by the United States in the betterment of 
channel facilities. It is claimed that benefit has already been felt 
from the w;ork done, and that each bend revetted adds to the safety 
and reliability of navigation. A number of individual shippers 
appearing at the hearing stated the amount of commerce that they 
would offer the boat line under improved river and transportation 
conditions. These were selected as representing different industries 
and lines of business, in which there are many other prospective 
shippers. Several of these shippers emphasized the fact that high- 
grade freight has been carried by the navigation company with less 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 7 

damage in transportation and handling and less loss from pilfering 
than they have experienced with rail shipments. The navigation 
company attributes these conditions to its fireproof and locked 
freight houses on the barges. It is claimed that with the improved 
methods of interchange of freight between rail and water, commerce 
originating west of Kansas City and destined for St. Louis or points 
still farther east, as well as that originating east of St. Louis and 
destined for Kansas City or points beyond, can he handled advan¬ 
tageously by the navigation company. Some business of this 
character has already been done, and the evidence points to its 
increase. The amoimt that may be handled in this way is purely 
conjectural, as the method is as yet experimental and in its infancy, 
but it is known that the total tonnage moving through this territory 
is very large. 

14. There have been presented to the board statistics of production 
and consumption of the territory tributary to the commercial center 
formed by Kansas City to show that the existing means of rail trans¬ 
portation are already fully utilized and that in the near future they 
will be unable to meet traffic requirements, if such be not the case 
to-day. It is claimed that soon additional highways of commerce 
will be a necessity. The report submitted in Appendix A 1 shows that 
the cost of construction and maintenance of one additional single 
track road is quite comparable with the estimated amount required 
to complete the present project and to maintain the improved chan¬ 
nel, while manifestly the carrying capacity of the improved water¬ 
way is vastly greater. 

15. It has been estimated that, with the channel held by revetted 
banks, there would be available for agricultural purposes in the bot¬ 
tom land along the river between Kansas City and St. Louis, 500,000 
acres, the greater part of which would be less than a mile distant 
from the river, and a considerable portion of which is now necessarily 
nonproducing. It is claimed that this area would contribute very 
substantially to the river traffic. 

16. Interested parties invite attention to the readjustment of 
transcontinental railway rates that is beng made as a result of 
traffic through the Panama Canal. The effect of these changes is to 
give pronounced advantage to Eastern seaboard industries for the 
Pacific coast trade, and thus to handicap the interior manufacturers, 
and it is claimed that their only hope of retaining a competitive 
position is in having the benefit of cheap water routes to the sea. 
An improved channel in the Missouri would connect with the effec¬ 
tive channel already provided m the Mississippi and give such a 
route from Kansas City to*the Gulf of Mexico. 

17. Among the indirect benefits to be anticipated from the im¬ 
provement of the Missouri River are: (1) The revetment of the cav¬ 
ing banks will give security to adjacent lands, which can then be 
protected from overflow by the construction of levees, thus adding 
materially to the value of land and to the area of production with a 
corresponding increase of commerce. Already in some of the pro¬ 
tected territory, local levee districts have been organized and are in 
successful operation. It has been stated that the general formation 
of levee districts is awaiting only the assurance that the improve¬ 
ment of the river will be continued. There is now a decided feeling 


1 See page 147. 



8 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

of unrest and anxiety as a result of the present investigation. (2) 
The confinement of the river to a fixed channel as contemplated by 
the project results in the reclamation and upbuilding of new lands 
that, within a few years, will become available for agricultural pur¬ 
poses. This will further increase the amount and value of property 
adjacent to the river, as well as the amount of prospective com¬ 
merce. (3) It is well known that the Missouri River carries large 
quantities of silt into the Mississippi River, resulting in injury to the 
navigation of that stream. The silt comes largely from the caving 
banks. The revetment of these banks and the fixation of the chan¬ 
nel will reduce the amount of this material. 

18. The board agrees with the district officer that up to this time 
experience in the United States on some other improved rivers, and 
particularly on the Mississippi, has not been such as to encourage 
the expectation that a river traffic will develop commensurate with 
the large cost of improvement. It would be difficult indeed to find 
economic justification of the cost of the improvement of the Mis¬ 
souri River from past experience on other waterways in this country 
having similar conditions. There is now, however, a renewed inter¬ 
est in river transportation and steps are being taken at a number of 
places on the Mississippi and its tributaries to provide terminal facili¬ 
ties and establish boat lines. The Government itself has under¬ 
taken an extensive program of improvement on the Ohio and Mis¬ 
sissippi and on this section of the Missouri to develop the possibili¬ 
ties of such inland water transportation. The board believes that 
the commercial interests at stake and the benefits to be secured are 
sufficient to warrant the continuance of such work on those main 
streams as will afford a thorough opportunity to test their usefulness 
as transportation routes. 

19. The United States embraces within its limits widely varying 
conditions of soil and climate, with farm, mine, and forest products 
of all kinds. Each section has some special advantage in the pro¬ 
duction of at least one of the articles required in civilized life. To 
attain the maximum benefit from these conditions it is essential that 
the means of intercommunication and distribution shall be fully 
developed, so that producers and consumers may be served at a 
minimum of cost. Both railways and waterways are needed. Each 
class of transportation has a sphere of its own. Destructive com¬ 
petition between them is uneconomical and wrong. In the more 
thickly settled parts of the country both now flourish even on parallel 
lines. It is uncertain whether this condition is as yet possible in the 
Missouri Valley. Its inhabitants claim that it is. This waterway 
lies in a direct path of traffic, and a well organized freight carrying 
line operates on it. When equally efficacious and up to date water 
transportation lines shall have been established on the Mississippi 
River, it seems beyond reasonable doubt that the commercial possi¬ 
bilities of these streams will be utilized to advantage. The testi¬ 
mony given to the board and appearing in the record of the public 
hearing shows potent causes for the decline of river traffic entirely 
apart from the true relative costs of transportation by rail and 
water. Changes of law have eliminated some of these causes, and it 
is claimed that the operations of the Kansas City-Missouri River 
Transportation Co. give promise that the remainder will disappear 
and that through such agencies the much-to-be-desired problem of 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 9 

minimum cost of transportation by water and rail will receive a 
definite solution. 

20. A review of the entire situation indicates that the present 
grounds for continuance of this project are stronger than those 
which led to its adoption. The board therefore condudes that it is 
advisable for the United States to continue the improvement of the 
Missouri River between Kansas City and the mouth in accordance 
with the existing project. 

For the board. 

W. M. Black, 

Colonel, Corps of Engineers, 

Senior Member of the Board . 


REEXAMINATION OF MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO 

THE MOUTH. 

War Department, 

United States Engineer Office, 

Kansas City, Mo., April 22, 1915 . 

From: The District Engineer Officer. 

To: The Chief of Engineers, United States Army 
(Through the Division Engineer). 

Subject: Reexamination of project, Missouri River, Kansas City to 

mouth. 

1. In compliance with instructions contained in department letter 
dated March 18, 1915, I submit the following report giving my 
general views on the question of the modification or abandonment 
of the project for the improvement of the Missouri River from Kansas 
City to the mouth. This report is called for by section 14 of the river 
and harbor act approved March 4, 1915. 

2. The project for this improvement was adopted by Congress 
July 25, 1912, in the following language: 

Improving Missouri River, with a view to securing a permanent six-foot channel 
between Kansas City and the mouth of the river, in accordance with the report sub¬ 
mitted in House Document Numbered Twelve hundred and eighty-seven, Sixty-first 
Congress, third session, and with a view to the completion of such improvement 
within a period of ten years, eight hundred thousand dollars: Provided , That coop¬ 
eration from the localities benefited may be required in the prosecution of the said 
project in case any comprehensive plan is hereafter adopted by Congress for an 
apportionment of expense generally applicable to river and other projects in which 
any improvement now or hereafter adopted confers special or exceptional benefit 
upon the localities affected: Provided further , That nothing herein contained shall 
postpone the expenditure of the amount hereby appropriated or any further appro¬ 
priation for said project without action by Congress. 

However, the first appropriation for the work was made June 25, 
1910, in the following language: 

Improving Missouri River, with a view to securing a permanent six-foot channel 
between Kansas City and the mouth of the river, one million dollars: Provided , That 
the Secretary of War shall appoint a board of three officers to further consider and 
report upon the most economical and desirable plan of securing such channel, in 
which report consideration will be given to the subject of cooperation on the part of 
local interests in the work of said improvement: Provided further , That the report 
hereby authorized shall be submitted to Congress on or before the opening of its next 
regular session. 



10 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

3. The appropriations and allotments made for this project are 


as follows: 

June 25, 1910. $1,000,000 

Feb. 27, 1911, authorized.1 000 

Aug. 24, 1912, appropriated./ ’ 

July 25, 1912...:.... . 800,000 

Mar. 4, 1913. 2,000,000 

Oct. 2, 1914. 850,000 

Mar. 4, 1915. 1,000,000 


Total of 6 appropriations. 6, 250, 000 


It will be noted that the appropriations have been made at about 
half the rate mentioned in the act adopting the project. 

4. The expenditures to March 4, 1915, were $3,577,290.85, con¬ 
sisting of $3,286,082.59 for improvement and $291,208.26 for main¬ 
tenance. It is estimated that the project is about 9 per cent com¬ 
pleted. There have been large expenditures for plant since the 
inception of the project, and for that reason and on account of the lack 
of appropriations at the proper rate, the amount expended and the 
percentage completed appear out of proportion. But it has been 
demonstrated that the work can be done within the estimated unit 
cost, and it is my opinion that with appropriations at the rate of 
$2,000,000 per year for improvement and sufficient funds for mainte¬ 
nance the project could be completed within the total estimated cost. 

5. The cost of maintenance after completion of the project is 
estimated at $500,000 per year. The maintenance work, including 
snagging, is now costing about $100,000 per year. It will gradually 
increase as the work progresses. If appropriations are continued 
at the rate of about $1,000,000 per year, and the maintenance increases 
from $100,000 to $500,000 per year, averaging $300,000 per year 
during the execution of the work, it is plain that over 20 years from 
this time will be required to complete the project. 

6. I consider that the question of modifying or abandoning the 
project is one to be decided by a comparison of the cost involved with 
the benefits derived. Assuming the money of the Government to be 
worth 3 per cent interest, the total estimated cost of the project 
represents $600,000 per year interest. Adding the maintenance 
cost of $500,000 per year gives $1,100,000 per year as the permanent 
charge to the Government resulting from the execution and mainte¬ 
nance of this project. 

7. The benefits derived are represented by the increased facilities 
for navigation. There are other incidental benefits, such as the pro¬ 
tection of lands from erosion and the amelioration of flood conditions, 
but these have not been recognized as proper objects of Government 
expenditure on the Missouri River and are therefore not considered 
in the analysis. 

8. The commerce to be considered is present and prospective, and 
the advantages that commerce will obtain from the improvement 
are the actual saving in freight charges by the use of the river and the 
effect on railroad freight rates produced by the possibility of water 
transportation. 











MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 11 


9. The commerce for the calendar year 1914 is not yet fully tabu¬ 
lated. For 1913 it was as follows: 


Articles. 


Amount. 


Customary units. 


Short 

tons. 


Valuation. 

Aver¬ 

age 

haul. 

Rate 
per ton- 
mile. ' 


Miles. 


$195,303.38 

123 

$0.0091 

2,049.66 

106 

.0156 

9,538.88 

8 

.0670 

345.00 

8 

.0483 

897,790.50 

291 

.0089 

137,039.20 

31 

.0403 

259.00 

9 

.0510 

1,646.00 

9 

.0557 

56.90 

9 

.0349 

1,152.90 

26 

.0346 

2,976.60 

13 

.0333 

1,088.00 

10 

.0415 

62,697.50 

14 

.0085 

22,370.40 

125 

.0114 

2,135.60 

9 

.1002. 

2,520,734.80 

237 

.0093 

473.00 

150 

0) 

71,555.00 

1 

<}) 

3,929,212.32 






Grain. 

Ilav.. 

Feed and flour. 

Oil. 

Manufactured iron and steel. 

Live stock. 

Salt. 

Sand and gravel. 

Brie . 

Cement. 

Lumber. 

Other building material_ 

Railroad ties. 

Produce. 

Wood. 

Miscellaneous. 

Logs and lumber rafted. 

Sand and gravel barged. 


253,940 bushels. 


46 barrels. 


4,800 head. 

148 barrels. 

1,735 cubic yards. 

4,800. 

534 barrels. 

75,360feet b. m... 


128,908... 
591 cords. 


43,000 feet b. m. 

238,136 cubic yards. 


Total. 


6,701 

114 

334 

12 

1,655 

945 

22 

2,513 

16 

107 

183 

15 

10,312 

196 

847 

13,579 

107 

309,577 


1 Owner. 


10. The items that are not benefited by improvement of the river 
are the sand and gravel barged and the logs and lumber rafted. 
They amount to 309,684 tons. Ferry traffic is not counted in report¬ 
ing the commerce on the Missouri River. 

11. Eliminating the logs and the sand and gravel barged, the re¬ 
maining traffic is 37,551 tons, divided into classes which are carried 
over average distances of from 8 to 291 miles. The total freight 
charge on this traffic was about $41,000. The Kansas City-Mis- 
souri River Navigation Co., the only through line on the river, 
operating between Kansas City and St. Louis, charges 80 per cent 
of the railroad freight rates. Assuming this to be the relation 
between the rail and water rates for the entire traffic, the saving to 
shippers by the use of the river in 1913 was about $10,000. it is 
evident that this saving is entirely inadequate to warrant the serious 
consideration of an expenditure by the Government of $1,100,000 
per year in interest and maintenance. 

12. The reduction in rail rates resulting from the possibility of 
water transportation is not a simple subject. There is no question 
that towns having water transportation are for that reason favored 
with lower rates than other places having no water transportation 
and requiring equal rail haul. It is my understanding that this 
condition is recognized bv the Interstate Commerce Commission. 
It is frequently argued that if the improvement of a river gives 
lower rail rates, such improvement is justified even if the river never 
carries a ton of freight. This might be true if there were no other 
method of controlling rail rates, but in these days when the railroads 
claim that they are being regulated too much, there appears to be 
no lack of governmental machinery for controlling them, and it 
does not seem necessary to spend $20,000,000 to bring about a proper 
rail rate between Kansas City and St. Louis. 












































12 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


13. In some cases the improvement of a stream is justified, even 
at high expense, where the absence of rail transportation leaves the 
territory along the stream entirely dependent on water transporta¬ 
tion. This is not the case with the Missouri River between Kansas 
City and the mouth. Over a great part of the distance the river is 
paralleled with railroads on both banks, and there are few localities 
that have no railroad within easy reach. 

14. There remains to be considered the question of prospective 
commerce, and in my opinion the improvement must stand or fall 
by this criterion. In the survey report upon which the present 
project is based, the prospective commerce was given by the presi¬ 
dent of the Missouri Valley River Improvement Association as 1,000,- 
000 tons. See page 45 of House Document No. 1120, Sixtieth Con¬ 
gress, second session. That estimate was based upon a 10-foot 
channel, with six or seven boats especially adapted to the naviga¬ 
tion of the Missouri River, handling cargoes of 2,000 tons each, and 
making one round trip per week during a navigation season of ten 
months. The fact is that anyone can make almost any estimate 
he sees fit as to the prospective commerce. I think a better way to 
approach the subject is by inquiry concerning a river that has been 
improved. An example is the Mississippi between the mouth of 
the Ohio and the mouth of the Missouri. In the annual reports of 
the Chief of Engineers this stretch of river is reported as having a 
navigable depth of 6 feet or more during the entire navigation season 
of recent years. The commerce for the calendar year 1913 was 
258,709 short tons, not including sand and gravel or ferry traffic. 
It should be noted that this stretch of river is so situated as to draw 
commerce from the improved stretches of the Mississippi above and 
below it as well as from the Ohio and the Missouri. If the Missis¬ 
sippi under these conditions and with a 6-foot channel carries 258,000 
tons, it seems to me doubtful whether the Missouri with the same 
depth will carry any more. The Missouri River traffic would have 
to increase sevenfold to equal that on the above section of the Missis 
sippi, and would have to increase a hundredfold to reach a figure 
commensurate with the cost of the work. 

15. From the foregoing considerations I am of the opinion that 
the present and reasonably prospective commerce on the Missouri 
River between Kansas City and the mouth is not sufficient to warrant 
the continuance of the present project. I think the snagging should 
be continued, so that commerce may have the advantage of the 
natural depth of the river and the river shall not be allowed to become 
entirely obstructed. Any attempt at partial improvement seems 
futile, because the draft of boats, and therefore their cargoes, will 
be determined by the least existing depth. If the river is improved 
at all, the work should be complete as to protection of banks and con¬ 
trol of channel. For the same reason it seems to me injudicious to 
spend any money in keeping up the works already built. If in 
another generation the improvement of the river becomes advisable, 
the present works will be of little value, and in the meantime the chan¬ 
nel depth in the portions that have been improved are not likely to 
be less than in the portions wholly unimproved. 

16. It is to be noted that these views agree in many respects with 
the previous attitude of the Engineer Department, as expressed by 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 13 


the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors June 8, 1908, and by 
the Chief of Engineers December 2, 1908, in action on survey report- 
published in House Document No. 1120, Sixtieth Congress, second 
session. The views of the board as to the futility of partial improve¬ 
ment and the wastefulness of inadequate and irregular appropria¬ 
tions, are of particular interest. The Missouri River Commission 
in its final report also expressed the opinion that there was no middle 
course between mere snagging and thorough systematic improve¬ 
ment. 

17. I recommend that the present project be modified so as to 
provide for snagging alone at an estimated cost of $40,000 per year, 
and that all other work be stopped. 

Herbert Deakyne, 

Lieut. Col., Corps of Engineers. 


|First indorsement.] 

Office Division Engineer, Western Division, 

St. Louis, Mo., May 22, 1915. 
To the Chief of Engineers, United States Army: 

1. Forwarded, concurring in the opinion of the district officer that 
the existing river commerce is not sufficient to justify the permanent 
improvement of the Missouri River from Kansas City to its mouth, 
but not approving the recommendation that the work should bo 
entirely abandoned. 

2. It is believed that there is still opportunity for the revival of 
western river commerce, but that it should first be sought not in the 
tributaries but in the main river. There is neither the density of 
population nor of material seeking shipment on the tributaries of the 
Mississippi, with the exception of the Ohio, to cause such a revival 
which will be in the nature of a revolution of the existing methods of 
transportation and will naturally originate at large centers of popu¬ 
lation, such as Chicago, Pittsburgh, St. Louis, and New Orleans, 
where large amounts of manufactured products are seeking shipment. 
The agricultural products originating on a river bank are not suffi¬ 
cient to justify a large expenditure for the improvement of the river 
channel. With a revival of commerce on the main stream its ex¬ 
tension to the tributaries will gradually follow. 

3. The fact, however, that there has been a failure to properly 
utilize the improved channel that has been maintained during the 
past 10 years from St. Louis to New Orleans should cause Congress 
to hesitate before continuing the large appropriations it is making 
for the western rivers. 

4. In the opinion of the division engineer, the problem of develop¬ 
ing our western rivers should be treated as a single one. Instead of 
scattering appropriations over the entire western territory a channel 
of 8 or 9 feet depth should first be provided from Chicago to New 
Orleans and the offer of assistance in the construction of a canal 
along the Des Plaines River from the State of Illinois accepted. An 
opportunity should then be afforded the American people to deter¬ 
mine whether they want waterways not by rhetorical efforts in river 
conventions, but by a practical utilization of the channel thus af¬ 
forded. Until such revival occurs appropriations on the tributaries 
should be confined to maintaining the existing status. The existing 


14 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

works should not bo allowed to deteriorate. At present an annual 
appropriation of $150,000 for snagging and the maintenance of exist¬ 
ing works is therefore recommended. 

C. McD. Townsend, 
Colonel, Corps of Engineers. 

[For report of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, 
see page 3.] 


STATEMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL CLUB OF WASHINGTON, MO. 

Washington, Mo., August .9, 1915. 

Be it declared and enacted by The Commercial Club of Washington, Mo., as follows: 

According to our best information the United States Government, through its 
proper channels and by some of its most competent engineers and officers, decided 
that the Missouri River should be improved, according to careful and well-laid plans. 

Lieut. Col. Deakyne, United States Army engineer in charge of the improvements, 
has recommended to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, Washington, 
I). C., the abandonment of such improvement in accordance with the present project. 

Much labor and money have been expended to get these improvements well under 
way, and the result so far. in spite of some reverses owing to unusual high waters, 
has been most satisfactory and successful. 

It does not seem logical or wise that our Government, after proclaiming to the 
public that it would make certain well-defined improvements upon the Missouri 
River, sets aside appropriations for that purpose, actually begins the work at a great 
cost of money and labor, should then suddenly decide it was in error, retracting all 
that was said and done. Such a stand would be detrimental and humiliating to the 
Government, its officials, and the people who worked and fought for the improvement. 

Furthermore, there is no necessity for such action. Part of the improvements have 
been made, and their continuation will make the Missouri River a valuable com¬ 
mercial stream. The business men of Washington, together with the city authorities, 
are about to build a suitable levee and warehouse for river shipments. They wish to 
patronize river transportation for the good of the community: 

Therefore, The Commercial Club of Washington, Mo., in behalf of its citizens, re¬ 
quests the official Representatives in Congress of this district and everyone interested 
in the permanent improvements of the Missouri River to protest most earnestly and 
emphatically against the late action of Lieut. Col. Deakyne in recommending the 
abandonment of such river improvement. 

It is further ordered and directed that the secretary of The Commercial Club send 
copies of these resolutions to Senators Stone and Reed, Speaker Clark, Board of En¬ 
gineers for Rivers and Harbors, Washington, D. C., and The Kansas City Commercial 
Club, that a copy thereof be filed with the records of The Commercial Olub, and that 
these resolutions be published in our city newspapers. 

Adopted August 9, 1915. 

G. Henry Otto, 
President of The Commercial Club. 

Attest: 

H. A. Krog, Secretary. 

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. 


LETTER OF MR. HUNTER M. MERIWETHER. 

Kansas City, Mo., Augustus, 1915. 

Dear Sirs: I desire to protest against the conclusions arrived at, with reference 
to the improvement of the Missouri River, by Lieut. Col. Herbert Deakyne. of the 
Corps of Engineers, in his report submitted August 4, 1915. Under section 6 of said 
report I quote as follows: “I consider that the question of modifying or abandoning 
the project is one to be decided by a comparison of the costs involved with the bene* 
fits derived.” Col. Deakyne then proceeds to base his conclusions entirely upon 
the benefits derived from the commerce carried by navigating the river in its present 
uncompleted condition. 

The error of such a contention has doubtless been fully pointed out to you by others 
who have protested against the conclusions of this report. What I desire to call your 




MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 15 


attention to is the fact that the benefits to be derived from the improvement of the 
Missouri River are not wholly or not even principally from the navigation of that 
river alone. 

The Missouri River is the greatest tributary of the Mississippi River. It leads 
through the Plains States and into the foothills of the Rocky Mountains. The actual 
fall in the Missouri River between Kansas City and St. Louis is 303.5 feet. The dis¬ 
tance is approximately 400 miles, so that the current of the Missouri River, as governed 
by this fall, is unusually rapid. It has been determined by expert examination to 
be between 4 and 7 miles per hour. By reason of the rapidity of this current, its 
scouring effect is excessive, and the great bends of the river, embracing its delta of 
approximately 10 miles in width throughout its course between Kansas City and 
St. Louis, are continually moving downstream. 

By reason of the swiftness of the current and the scouring effect referred to, the 
matter carried in suspension by the Missouri River is very excessive and exceedingly 
coarse. The coarse sand which flows not only in the water but along the bottom of 
the river is emptied into the channel of the Mississippi River, where the current is 
not nearly so rapid. It is well known that the amount of coarse material thus de¬ 
posited into the channel of the Mississippi River amounts to millions of cubic yards 
a year, and the improvement of the Mississippi River will be rendered far more 
expensive unless this vast quantity of coarse material from the channel of the Missouri 
River can be reduced. 

The only practical way to reduce this quantity of material now being delivered by 
the Missouri River into the channel of the Mississippi River is by the improvement 
of the banks of the Missouri River so as to prevent it from continually caving away 
these banks, and in this way to prevent the annual flow of the bends of the river 
downstream. That the improvement of these banks is entirely feasible from an 
engineering standpoint is admitted in the report of Col. Deakyne. 

I protest that the improvement of the Missouri River is a necessary part of the 
project to improve the Mississippi River, and that unless the caving banks of the 
Missouri River are prevented, the cost of improving the Mississippi River will be so 
great as to be far less advisable from an economic standpoint than the improvement 
of the Missouri River is from the same standpoint. The project of improving the 
Missouri River should be carried out as originally planned as a part of the general 
plan of rendering the Mississippi River navigable, and as the cheapest method of 
permanently improving that river even if there was never a pound of freight or a 
particle of commerce between St. Louis and Kansas City. 

I protest that Col. Deakyne did not consider this feature of the project and that 
any consideration of the improvement of the Missouri River, as separated from the 
general project of improving interior rivers and harbors, is improper and should not 
receive the indorsement of your board. 

The writer has had many years practical experience in the matter of controlling 
the Missouri River and protecting its banks against erosion, and thoroughly agrees 
with Col. Deakyne in his statement that it is practicable and entirely feasible to 
prevent the banks of this river from erosion, and that the same can be done for less 
than the amount specified in the plans for the completion of this project. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Hunter M. Meriwether. 

The Board op Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. 


LETTER OF THE MINNEAPOLIS CIVIC AND COMMERCE ASSOCIATION. 

September 9, 1915. 

Gentlemen: This association, representing 3,300 of the most prominent business 
men of Minneapolis, respectfully requests permission to bring to your attention sev¬ 
eral matters with regard to the report of Lieut. Col. Deakyne, Corps of Engineers, 
United States Army, relating to the abandonment of the improvement project upon 
the Missouri River. .... . . 

In common with other western communities, this city has a most vital interest in 
all middle western improvement projects at this time. It is the feeling of our business 
men that the disadvantages resulting to this section of the country by reason of the 
opening of the Panama Canal will be counteracted only by such improvement of 
the waterways as will bring direct water communication to all communities which 
may be so benefited by reasonable expenditure for river improvements. 

Our manufacturers have already felt to some extent the effect of seaboard compe¬ 
tition in the Pacific coast trade which the construction of the Panama Canal has 



16 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


caused, and are, therefore, in a position to appreciate the disadvantages which must 
ensue to the commercial interests of Kansas City, unless the benefits of the Panama 
Canal are made available to that section through the establishment of direct water 
communication between Kansas City and the seaboard. Although this association 
is not pA^red to enter into details of this situation, nevertheless we feel that a com¬ 
munity which is even less advantageously situated with regard to transportation 
than our city has an undeniable claim to consideration by the Federal Government 
in this matter. 

The Middle West is a unit in its desire for the widest possible distribution of the 
advantages of the Panama Canal through river development in this section. Repre¬ 
senting a considerable part gf that community, this association respectfully recom¬ 
mends to your honorable board a most careful consideration of all points involved 
before accepting the report of the United States engineer above referred to. 

In addition to this threatened handicap to a portion of the Middle West of which 
we are a part, this city in particular has another even more direct interest in the 
improvement of the Missouri River. We refer particularly to the commerce between 
Minneapolis and the territory tributary to Kansas City. This commerce takes the 
form of implements of many kinds, such as tractors, thrashing engines, and separators, 
furniture, manufactured cereals, and prepared roofing. It is impossible at this time 
on such short notice to make any complete study of the traffic relations existing 
between Minneapolis and Kansas City and their bearing upon the improvement of 
the Missouri River for purposes of navigation. It is safe to state, however, that many 
thousands of tons of freight move between these two centers annually, and that the 
rates of service between these points are vitally affected by the navigability of the 
Missouri River. This potential highway of commerce is of the greatest importance 
to this market in view of the fact that within a few months Minneapolis will become 
the head of navigation upon the Mississippi. 

Already our business men are making plans for the practical resumption of navi¬ 
gation and the proposed closing of the Missouri River will result in the isolation, so 
far as river communication is concerned, of a very large and profitable market. 
Although this market at the present time has been developed to a considerable extent 
by our local manufacturers and wholesalers, there has been very recently a new 
awakening to the possibilities of southwestern territory and a spirit of enterprise 
manifested by our local people in this regard which this association is desirous of 
fostering in every possible way. The seemingly imminent resumption of direct 
water communication between Minneapolis and the southwestern market has un¬ 
doubtedly been a factor in stimulating our business men to look to the Southwest 
f or trade. The closing of the Missouri channel, which we are informed would ensue 
upon following the recommendations of Lieut. Col. Deakyne, would have a very 
detrimental effect upon the attitude of our people toward this new and rapidly devel¬ 
oping section of the country. Moreover, with the assured 6-foot channel upon the 
upper Mississippi River, with Minneapolis lying at its head, our business men feel 
that the closing of the Missouri channel would be a serious subtraction from the benefits 
which would otherwise accrue to this and other cities similarly situated. 

From still another point of view the closing of the Missouri channel menaces the 
welfare of this section of the country. Our business men have looked with admira¬ 
tion upon the efforts of Kansas City to establish navigation upon the inland waterways 
of this country. They have admired the perseverance of the southwest in actually 
establishing boat lines upon the Missouri River in spite of the almost insuperable 
obstacles offered to the Missouri River channel. With this example of business hardi¬ 
hood before them they have already taken steps for the organization of navigation 
companies to use the Mississippi channel which the Government is about to complete. 
In these efforts the association has taken a most active part. We can not but feel 
however, that any further efforts along this line will be seriously handicapped by the 
adoption of a report which closes to navigation a river channel which shippers have so 
conscientiously and courageously endeavored to make practical use of as have the 
shippers along the Missouri River. 

We submit letters 1 from some of the more prominent manufacturers of agricultural 
implements interested in this southwestern territory indicating their connection with 
this section and their attitude toward the abandonment of the Missouri River as pro¬ 
posed in the report of Lieut. Col. Deakyne. Should you desire other letters from 
our manufacturers on this subject we shall be glad to furnish them. 

Respectfully submitted. 

W. F. Decker, President. 

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. 


Not printed 





MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 17 


LETTER OF MR. H. G. MOULTON. 

October 22, 1915. 

Dear Sirs: I am submitting, for the consideration of the board of Army engineers, 
the following testimony which I was unable to give at the public hearings gA^Aansas 
City. I could not stay for the second day’s conference and could not gain permission 
to speak on the first day. I was informed, however, by one of the members of the 
board that if my testimony was submitted in writing it would receive careful con¬ 
sideration from the board. 

My conclusions will be found to be strongly in support of Col. Deakyne’s report. 

Very respectfully, yours, 

H. G. Moulton. 

The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. 


STATEMENT OF MR. H. G. MOULTON. 

I. The writer’s qualifications for speaking upon the question of the Missouri River 
improvements are as follows: He is assistant professor of political economy at the Uni¬ 
versity of Chicago and has made what has been called the most thoroughgoing investi¬ 
gation of water transportation that we have. In 1910 he went to Eurpoe and made a 
first-hand investigation for six months, covering all of the principal countries of 
Europe. The investigation also included the principal waterways projects of the 
United States. The conclusions, published in “Waterways vs. Railways” (Houghton, 
Mifflin & Co., 1912), a volume of 470 pages, have been generally accepted by the 
economists of the United States as conclusive. 

The writer’s interest in testifying before the Army board of engineers is that of a 
scientific student of the question, on the one hand, and that of a taxpayer, on the other 
hand, who is interested in having the Government funds expended for justifiable 
projects only. 

II. In discussing the Missouri River project, I wish to treat the subject from two 
standpoints; first, that of the probable traffic that is likely to develop, and second, 
from the broader standpoint of national economic policy. 

The testimony submitted before the Army board at the hearings in Kansas City 
shows that the main reliance is placed upon the carrying of manufactured commodities 
with some hope that agricultural produce will use the river. The experience of other 
waterways in this and other countries will throw much light on the probability of 
extensive traffic development of this sort. 

1. Germany. —a. The Rhine River: Of all the rivers in Germany there is only one 
which is self-supporting—i. e., which has sufficient traffic to cover the annual expenses 
of maintenance and interest on the investment. The traffic on the lower Rhine in 1908 
was 21,818,000 tons. Of the upstream traffic 50.8 per cent was of iron ore and coal and 
19 per cent imported grain unloaded from ocean vessels at Rotterdam to the canal 
boats. Of the downstream traffic 70.2 per cent was coal and iron. Of the remaining 
traffic, both upstream and down, a large part was of cement, building materials, rock 
salt, and fertilizer. Not 10 per cent was made up of manufactured wares and domestic 
agricultural produce. Much of the manufactured commodities was of bulky iron and 
steel manufactures. The total traffic in manufactures did not exceed 2,000,000 tons. 
In considering this total the following points of special advantage enjoyed by the 
Rhine are to be noted: (1) In the Westphalian industrial region near the lower Rhine, 
on an area of 1,300 square miles, one-fiftieth of the area of Missouri, originates one- 
fourth of the entire traffic of the German Empire. (2) The entire cost of canalization of 
the river, 1866-1898, was $4,250,000. (3) The river is interrupted by floods two days 

a year on an average. (4) Ice closes navigation 17 days a year. (5) There are no 
periods of low water, the river being fed by the melting of glacial ice in the Alps. (6) 
It has ample depth for 2,000-ton barges for 351 miles. 

b. The Danube River: The total traffic in 1886 was 231,000 tons and in 1908 was 
281,000 tons. The depth of the river is 1\ feet. It flows through the rich territory of 
Bavaria and through the heart of Austria. The reason for the small amount of traffic 
is that there are no great deposits of coal and iron near the river. Conditions, on the 
whole, are very similar to those on the Missouri River. Of the existing tonnage a large 
part is in building materials. 

c. The Vistula River (typical of the rivers of east Germany): The traffic in 1873 was 
161,000 tons and in 1908 was 135,000 tons. It has ample depth, few interruptions 
from floods or low water. The causes of the smallness of the traffic are: (1) No coal or 
ore deposits. (2) Closed for ice four months in the year. 

H. Doc. 463, 64-1-2 



18 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


It flows through a rich agricultural region, but the German Government recognizes 
that the agricultural produce can not make extensive use of water transportation. 
The following quotation is the official view: . . 

“The raising of agricultural produce always presupposes a relatively extensive area 
of production and is thus a decentralized industry, on which account, in the great 
majority of cases, it is only the railways that come into consideration with reference to 
their transport.” The cost of transshipping is regarded as prohibitive. 

2. France .—The following statistics show the character of the traffic moving on 
French waterways: 

Character of French traffic. 


Per cent. 


Coal and coke. 29. 5 

Stone, gravel, and lime. 36. 3 

Fertilizer. 4. 2 

Wood and lumber. 5. 2 

Metals and machinery. 2. 6 

Oils, sugar, and sand. 4. 4 


Per cent 


Industrial products. 5. 3 

Agricultural products. 13. 2 

Unclassified. 9 

Raft wood. 4 


Total. 100. 0 


The relatively large percentage for agriculture here is due to the extensive ship¬ 
ment of wine in casks by waterway. 

3. The United'States.— The only really extensive traffic on American waterways 
to-day is in the Great Lakes through St. Marys Falls Canal, due almost exclusively 
to iron ore and coal, and on the Ohio River, due, primarily, to coal. 

It is important to note that the Ohio River owes its large traffic largely to the fact 
that the coal is mined very close to the tributaries to the Ohio, particularly, the 
Monongahela, and can be loaded without transshipment and floated down the river. 

In France, over 96 per cent of the total waterway traffic is strictly riparian. This 
is in spite of every effort to bring about cooperation between the waterways and 
railway. The cost of transshipment is too great a barrier. In Germany most of the 
traffic, except in the Rhine region, originates on the river and is distributed to points 
on the river. Whenever it is transshipped, it has to be at rates which do not cover 
the cost, the Government shouldering the deficit. 

The deficit borne by the German Government on all waterways in 1905 was as 
follows: 


Waterway. 

Total 

deficit. 

Deficit per 
mile. 

Uncanalized rivers. 

$4,787,473 
6,869,667 
1,841,637 

12,060 

4,555 

Canalized rivers and canals. 

Harbors. 

Total. 


13,498,777 

3,523 



DEFICIT ON PARTICULAR WATERWAYS IN 1905. 

Weser River: $257,388, or 59 cents a ton. There are no extensive deposits of 
iron and coal along the Weser. 

Elbe River and connecting canals about Berlin: $1,767,778, or 23 cents a ton. 
This traffic is largely coal, gravel, cement, and other building materials, of locai 
origin, so that the deficit amounts to something like 1 cent per ton-mile. 

The deficit on the French waterways in 1905 was $19,000,000, or $2,500 per mile of 
navigation. 

4. The Missouri River project— In discussing the Missouri River, I wish to speak 
first of the traffic estimates that have been made. The estimates made indicate 
that from 750,000 to 1,000,000 tons should eventually use the river. It is to be noted: 

a. That if such an amount of traffic could be developed on the Missouri River, the 
shippers there will have done at least tenfold better in that connection than on any 
other river in the world. 

b. The estimates and promises of traffic that are now being made are based on the 
assumption that there will be an actual substantial reduction in the water rates as 
compared with the rail. This, as will be shown later, is by no means sure. 

c. It is to be noted that these estimates of traffic are exaggerated in the hope of 
procuring Government aid. Such has been the case with every river or canal proj¬ 
ect; and subsequent events have always proved this to be true. The total traffic 
between Kansas City and St. Louis over all four railroads moving in both directions 
for the present fiscal year was 3,000,000 tons. This data has been secured direct from 
the railways in question. The data submitted at the hearings by a gentleman from 


























MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 19 


St. Louis showed the same figure for the year 1912. (I understand, however, that the 
manager of the boat line in Kansas City claims that the total traffic between Kansas 
City and St. Louis is 8,000,000 tons and that his boat line should get 10 per cent of 
this amount, or 800,000 tons. This figure of 8,000,000 tons is incorrect.) Lieut. Col. 
Deakyne’s report shows that the saving in 1913 was about $10,000 on a total traffic of 
about 37,551 tons. On 800,000 tons the saving would be about $200,000 at the same 
rate. To save $1,100,000, the amount of our maintenance and interest charges, 
would require more than 4,000,000 tons of traffic; in other words, one-third more 
than the entire traffic passing between Kansas City and St. Louis. In other words, 
if the waterways should succeed in taking all the traffic away from the railways, it 
would still be insufficient to cover the maintenance and interest charges on the 
waterway. 

d. The question should be raised, however, would not a larger traffic present a 
still further reduction in the water rates? It was brought out in the hearings that 
the deficit to the boat line for 1914 was $40,000. It should be noted that the actual 
cost was, therefore, not $1.10 a ton, as shown by the rates, but over $2 a ton; for this 
$40,000 deficit was incurred in the moving of less than 30,000 tons of freight. How¬ 
ever, it appears probable that with improved conditions of navigation the company 
would be able to conduct business without the deficit. The question was raised by 
one of the board of engineers, however, if this deficit included the interest on the 
investment made by the owners of the boat company; and the reply was that it was 
quite exclusive of interest charges. The shareholders who have invested funds in 
this boat company forego, let us say, a 5 per cent interest rate in alternate employ¬ 
ments of these funds. The interest on the capital invested must, therefore, be counted 
as part of the cost of transporting these goods, and it is certain that, sooner or later, 
the shareholders will complain if interest is not paid on the shares. The capital 
stock is $1,200,000, of which more than $1,000,000 has been paid in. The amount of 
interest charges at 5 per cent is, therefore, $55,000, ultimately $60,000. On the 
basis of the present traffic, this makes the cost of transportation on the boat line not 
$1.10 a ton, but over $4 a ton, including the operating deficit already mentioned. 
I believe it is altogether improbable that for many years to come, at the existing 
level of rates, it would be possible for the boat company to pay dividends. The 
shippers of Kansas City are merely deceiving themselves when they think that the 
use of this boat line is going to substantially reduce the cost of transportation, all 
factors included. 

III. The shippers of Kansas City feel, however, that even if the traffic is not ade¬ 
quate to cover the Government’s outlays, they are entitled to aid from the Federal 
Government. They believe that the nominal reduction in rate by 20 cents a ton 
means success or ruin to the manufacturing interests. This view, however, can not 
be accepted as sound from the standpoint of general welfare. In the first place, the 
notion that if they get this aid from the Federal Government it costs them nothing 
is erroneous. They are disposed to make this, the Missouri River fight, a general 
waterways fight. The rest of the country is paying Federal taxes to contribute to 
the support of the Missouri River; but if the people of Missouri are asked in return 
to contribute by means of Federal taxes to the support of waterways in Arkansas, 
Florida, Texas, California, and elsewhere, they are really paying for their own water¬ 
way. This becomes almost literally true, in view of the congressional system, whereby 
the regions which have no waterways to improve secure post offices and other public 
buildings instead. 

It should be noted, in the second place, that there is really no occasion for a reduc¬ 
tion in freight rates by means of water competition, aided by large appropriations 
from the Federal Treasury. The Federal Government has demonstrated its power 
to reduce the railroad rates in certain sections, if they are too high; and if it is true 
that the Kansas City district, by virtue of the opening of the Panama Canal, is dis¬ 
criminated against, we have the means, through our Interstate Commerce Commission, 
of readjusting the railway rates to remove this disadvantage. 

Another erroneous idea is that if this traffic is taken away from the railroads that 
the railway freight charges will thereby be proportionately reduced. The Interstate 
Commerce Commission has recognized that the railways are entitled to a fair return 
on their investment. If, by losing this traffic, they should find their revenues sub¬ 
stantially reduced, the railways would either have to recoup their losses by charging 
higher rates on other traffic which is still moved by the railroads, or would have to 
apply to the Interstate Commerce Commission for permission to charge a uniform 
higher rate on all traffic. It has never been shown that the railroads between Kansas 
City and St. Louis are reaping, on the whole, exorbitant profits. 

Finally, I wish to raise this consideration. If it is true that Kansas City is in need 
of having the freight rates reduced, could these lower rates not be secured better by 



20 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


means of a railway than by means of the improvement of the river. The city of Cin¬ 
cinnati has a railroad of its own, which has proved very successful. The details of 
this road are discussed in a very remarkable article on the waterways question by 
Mr. Walter L. Fisher, former Secretary of the Interior. I inclose a copy 1 of the 
Journal of Political Economy in which his article appears. The article as a whole 
is a valuable discussion of the whole waterways question. 

Respectfully submitted. 

H. G. Moulton. 


LETTER OP THE KANSAS CITY MISSOURI RIVER NAVIGATION CO. 


Kansas City, Mo., October 30, 1915. 

Gentlemen: At Col. Black’s suggestion, we are pleased to submit our views in the 
matter of dredging in the Missouri River. You will understand, of course, that we 
do not advocate dredging as a means of permanent channel improvement. 

During the low-water period of each season, limit of draft or barge load is prescribed 
by the depth of water over a very few shallow crossings—generally not more than 
two or three at any one time. The shallow sections of such crossings are usually very 
short—100 to 900 feet—and we have for some time contended that it would be a simple 
matter to relieve this limitation of load by the use of a dredge. It has been our expe¬ 
rience that, as the river falls, the current will in time naturally scour its own channel 
to a reasonable depth, but this requires time—sometimes several weeks. While the 
channel is “finding itself,” navigation is hampered by the uncertainty of where such 
channel will make and by the shallow water during making process. We are confi¬ 
dent that the proper location for channel could readily be determined, and the chan¬ 
nel dredged in a very short time and with very beneficial results to navigation. 

It seems reasonable to contend that, while permanent improvement work is pro¬ 
gressing, a dredge should be employed to provide a minimum depth of channel some¬ 
what in keeping with the available depth throughout the greater portion of the river. 

Further, it seems to be the judgment of the local engineer office that dredging will 
eventually be necessary—after completion of the project—to take care of occasional 
fills. Why not employ such dredge now so that commerce might more quickly secure 
the maximum benefit of channel improvement? 

We beg to suggest that the engineering advice and information we have obtained 
would indicate the necessity for using, in the Missouri River, dredges with not less 
than 24-inch suction. 

Attached tabulation shows the months of this and last season in which our boats 
were delayed at shallow crossings that could easily have been eliminated by dredging. 
You will note that not more than four crossings gave trouble during any one month. 
This tabulation does not show delays or groundings due to uncertain location of chan¬ 
nel or causes other than shallow crossings. 

Very truly, yours, 


A. W. Mackie, 
Assistant to the President. 


The Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. 


STATEMENT OF THE KANSAS CITY MISSOURI RIVER NAVIGATION CO. 

Delays and groundings, 1914-15, chargeable entirely to shallow crossings. 


Crossings. 

Miles 

from 

Kansas 

City. 

April. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

August. 

Sep¬ 

tember. 

Octo¬ 

ber. 

Novem¬ 

ber. 

Baltimore Bar. 

85 

154 

165 

210 

230 

258 

266 

334 

337 

363 

377 






1915 

1915 


Glasgow. 

1914 



1914 


1914 

Saline City. 



1914 

1914 

1914 

1915 

Plow Boy. 






Stanley Island. 

1915 

1915 


1914 




Isbell. 





1914 

Chamois. 

1914 

1914 






Klondy ke. 



1914 

1914 

1914 




St. Albans. 


1914 





1914 

1914 

St. Charles. 






Pelican Island. 


1914 

1914 


1914 









’ Not printed. 



















































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 21 


SPECIAL REPORT OP THE KANSAS CITY MISSOURI RIVER NAVIGATION CO. 

Index. 


Comparison of tonnage, ton-mileage, and cost of transportation per year.21-23 

Running efficiency per year.23-25 

Running efficiency of each boat per trip, per month, and per year.25-30 

Record of time consumed per round trip per year. 31-34 

Tonnage, mileage, and ton-mileage and fuel consumption per boat, per trip, 

and per year. 34-39 

Colored charts showing the operation of each boat each day and each hour, 1913, 

1914, and 1915. 39 


KANSAS CITY MISSOURI RIVER NAVIGATION CO. SPECIAL REPORT, OCTOBER 17, 1915. 

Capacity. —The capacity of the fleet of the Kansas City Missouri River Navigation 
Co. is 1,350 indicated horsepower in the two towboats A. M. Scott and Advance, and 
5,700 tons capacity in 12 merchandise barges and lighters and an additional 750 indi¬ 
cated horsepower and 300 tons capacity in the packet boat Chester. 

Actual tonnage carried. —In the current year, up to October 1,1915, the two towboats 
transported in the merchandise barges 27,306 tons, traveled a total of 32,004 miles with 
a ton-mileage of 10,708,344 in 1,004^ boat-hours or an output of 1,075 ton-miles per 
boat-hour. 

The normal capacity of each towboat with the present channel allowing only a 
draft of 4 feet being 3,000 ton-miles per hour, this year’s operating efficiency figures 
at 36 per cent, and if we consider the fact that boats, no matter how efficient can not 
run 100 per cent of the total time in service, but that 70 per cent efficiency is looked 
upon as a maximum figure, only an additional 34 per cent increase can be expected 
even with a perfect channel of 4 feet. 

As this year’s visible delay caused by grounding, rudder and machinery repairs 
from the same cause, and the lay-up time during dark nights in unimproved stretches 
of river amounts to 22.12 per cent, only an additional 12 per cent efficiency can be 
reasonably expected for the next season, which 12 per cent must be sav£d at the 
terminals. 

Cost of transportation. —The cost of transportation per ton-mile has been reduced 
to 3.5 mills and, with an additional 12 per cent increase in efficiency and additional 
economies in all departments, may be reduced to 2.5 mills next season. 

TOWBOAT “a. M. SCOTT”—REPORT OF FIRST HALF OF NAVIGABLE SEASON, 1915. 

March 10 to June 30. 

The steamer A. M. Scott entered her regular service March 10, 6.50 p. m., leaving 
East St. Louis with the barge Delta, and had traversed by June 30, 1915, in 112 
days of continuous service, 8,124 miles against 6,150 miles of the previous year, or an 
average of 73 miles per day. 

Out of a total of 2,693 hours she was actually running mtow 1,404£ hours, or 52 per 
cent of the time, while in 1914 the running efficiency over the same season did not 
exceed 42 per cent. She was delayed by navigation trouble 73 hours, or 2.7 per 
cent; delayed by bunkering and waiting for oil 135^ hours, or 5 per cent; delayed by 
machinery or boiler trouble while under way 30 hours, or 1.1 per cent; by storm, fog, 
and darkness while running upstream 188£ hours and downstream 225J hours, or a 
total of 15.7 per cent; by loading and unloading while under way, 47 hours, or 2 per 
cent; and she was held in port at St. Louis for 225 hours, or 8.3 per cent, and at the 
home port of Kansas City 364 hours, or 13.2 per cent. 

Tonnage and ton-mileage. —During these 112 days she transported a total of 7,410 
tons or 67.5 tons per day, and traversed 8,124 miles, or 73 miles per day; the total ton- 
mileage has been increased from 1,800,000 ton-miles in 1914 to 2,900,000 ton-miles 
for the spring season ending June 30, 1915, bringing the ton-mile capacity per day 
from 18,600 last year to 26,000 ton-miles this year, an increase of 50 per cent over last 
year. 

Total fuel consumption.— The total fuel consumption was 5,847 barrels with a value 
of $4,310.46, or 58 cents per ton and 54 cents per mile against a costof 66 cents per ton 
and 48 cents per mile in the spring of 1914. . 

Cost of transportation. —The cost of transportation per mile has been reduced from 
$2 07 in 1913 to $1.78 in 1914 and $1.27 in the first half year 1915; the cost of transpor¬ 
tation per ton has been reduced from $2.89 in 1913 to $2.23 in 1914 and $1.40 in the 
first half year 1915; the cost of transportation per ton-mile has been reduced from 7.1 
mills in 1913 to 5.5 in 1914 and 3.48 mills in the first half year 1915. 








22 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


July 1 to September 30. 

In the three months, July to September, inclusive, the towboat A. M. Scott traversed 
in 92 days 7,828 miles, or 85 miles per day, against 73 miles per day in the first part of 
the year. 

Out of a total of 2,208 hours she was actually running in tow 1,135$ hours, or 51.5 
per cent; she was delayed by navigation trouble 83$ hours, or 3.85 percent; by rudder 
and other machinery repair 46f hours, or 2.1 per cent; delayed by darkness, rain, and 
storm while running downstream 234 hours, or 10.65 per cent; while running upstream 
96 hours, or 4.4 per cent; delayed by bunkering oil 76f hours, or 3.5 per cent; delayed 
by loading at way points 34$ hours, or 1.5 per cent; she was held at East St. Louis 
227$ hours, or 10.2 per cent, and at the home port, Kansas City, 273$ hours, or 12.3 
per cent. 

Tonnage and ton-mileage. —During these 92 days she transported a total of 6,354 
tons, or 68 tons per day, against 67.5 tons in the first part of the year. The ton-mileage 
increased to 5,539,610 ton-miles, showing a daily ton-mile capacity of 28,690 and an 
hourly ton-mile capacity of 1,195. 

Fuel consumption. —The total fuel consumption for the whole year up to October 1 
was 10,866 barrels, with a value of $8,719, or 80 cents per barrel, 63.5 cents per ton, and 
55$ cents per mile, against a cost of 59 cents per mile in 1914 and $1.03 per mile in 1913. 

TOWBOAT “advance” —REPORT OF FIRST HALF OF NAVIGATION SEASON, 1915. 

March % to June 30. 

The steamer Advance entered her regular service on March 2, 1915, leaving East 
St. Louis with the barge Gamma at 6.30 a. m., and had traversed by June 30, 1915, in 
121 days of service, 7,776 miles, or an average of 64.5 miles per day. 

Out of a total of 2,895$ hours, she was under way downstream or upstream 1,200 
hours, or 41.5 per cent of the total time, and traversed 7,776 miles, or an average of 
6.5 miles per running hour downstream and upstream, while the Scott traversed 8,124 
miles in 1,404$ hours, or an average of 5.8 miles per running hour downstream and 
upstream. 

The Advance was delayed by navigation trouble 190J hours, or 6.6 per cent; by 
loading and unloading, under way 62$ hours, or 3 per cent; by machinery and boiler 
trouble, 118$hours, or 4.1 per cent; by bunkering oil, 97 hours, or 3.3 per cent; delayed 
by storm, rain, fog, and darkness, while running upstream, 194$ hours; and while run¬ 
ning downstream 294$ hours, or a total of 16.8 per cent; and she was held at St. Louis for 
164 hours, or 5.7 per cent, and at the home port, Kansas City, for 550$ hours, or 19.1 
per cent. 

Tonnage and ton-mileage. —During the 121 days of service she transported a total of 
6,530 tons, or 54$ tons per day, and reached by June 30, a total ton-mileage of 2,361,500, 
bringing her ton-mile capacity per day to 20,300 ton-miles. 

Fuel-oil consumption. —The fuel-oil consumption was 4,591.14 barrels, with a value 
of $3,531.48, or 54 cents per ton and 45 cents per mile. 

Cost of transportation. —The cost of transportation per mile has been reduced from 
$1.90 in 1914 to $1.22 in the first part of 1915; the cost of transportation per ton has been 
reduced from $3.99 in 1913 to $2.60 in 1914 and $1.44 in the first part of 1915. 

The cost of transportation per ton-mile has been reduced, from 9.75 mills in 1913 to 
6.37 mills in 1914 to 3.78 mills in the first part of the year 1915. 

July 1 to September SO. 

In the three months, July to September, inclusive, the tow boat Advance traversed 
in 92 days of service 7,948 miles, or 86.5 miles per day, against an average of 64.5 
miles per day in the first part of the season. 

Out of a total of 2,208 hours of service she was running in tow 1,115 hours, or 50.5 
per cent; delayed by navigation trouble 69$ hours, or 1.8 per cent; delayed by’loading 
at way stations, 57$ hours, or 2.6 per cent; delayed by darkness, rain, fog, and storm 
while running upstream, 104$ hours, or 4.7 per cent; while running downstream, 2254 
hours, or 5.7 per cent; and at Kansas City 390$ hours, or 17.6 per cent. 

Tonnage and ton-mileage. —During these 92 days she transported a total of 6,462 tons, 
or 70 tons per day, against an average of 54$ tons per day in the first part of the season’ 
and reached by October 1 a total ton-mileage of 5,148,021, bringing her daily ton- 
mile capacity for the year to October 1 to 24,200 ton-miles, against a daily ton-mile 
capacity of the Scott of 27, 000 ton-miles. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 23 


Fuel-oil consumption. The total fuel-oil consumption for the whole year up to 
October 1 was 8,161 barrels, with a value of $6,753, or 83 cents per barrel, and 52 cents 
per ton and 43 cents per mile, against a cost of 59.5 cents per mile in 1914. 

TOWBOAT “a. M. SCOTT”—REPORT ON SEASON 1914. 

The towboat A. M. Scott was in service in 1914, 261 days, against 205 days in 1913. 
During the first part of the year, until June 30, she had to wait for freight 22 days out of 
97 days, leaving her 75 days for operation, 54 per cent of which time she was actually 
running, while she was delayed by navigation trouble 6 per cent of this time, by pro¬ 
peller and rudder trouble 2 per cent, by bunkering oil 3 per cent. During the 75 days 
she was transporting 4,438 tons, or 59 tons per day, and traveling 6,150 miles, or 82 
miles per day, reaching a daily ton-mile capacity of 24,500 ton-miles, or an hourly 
capacity of 1,000 ton-miles. And including all lay ups her capacity for the high-water 
season still figures 18,600 ton-miles per day and 775 ton-miles per hour. 

During the second part of the year, from July 1 to December 11, she had to wait for 
freight 41 days, leaving her 123 days out of a total of 164 days for operation. Out of 
these 123 days, however, she was delayed on account of insufficient water 30 days and 
on account of rudder and propeller trouble 22 days, leaving her only 71 days in which 
she was transporting tonnage, so that in the whole year of 1914 she was actually trans¬ 
porting freight only 146 days, or 56 per cent of the total time she was in service, while 
in 1913 she was running 150 days out of a total of 205 days, or 73 per cent of the total 
time she was in service. Her hourly ton-mile capacity for 1914 was 494 ton-miles. 

The delay on account of freight for the whole year amounted to 63 days, or 24 per 
cent of the total time, and the delay on account of insufficient water 30 days, or 11| 
per cent of the total time, so that the most serious delay of the year was the waiting for 
freight, which delay again was caused by insufficient service caused by insufficient 
water. 

Efficiency of season. —During the 261 days the A. M. Scott was in service she was ac¬ 
tually running 26.4 per cent of the time, delayed by insufficient freight, loading and 
unloading time, 17.4 per cent; on account of insufficient water, 10.2 per cent; on account 
of propeller and rudder trouble, 6.1 per cent; on account of bunkering oil, 1.8 per cent; 
on account of machinery trouble, 0.2 per cent; while she was laid up for darkness, fog, 
or storm 37.9 per cent of her time. 

During 1913 her actual running efficiency was 33 per cent, so that there is a decrease 
to be noted of 6.6 per cent. 

Tonnage. —The total tonnage moved downstream in 1914 is 4,509.65 tons, against 
1,709.5 tons in 1913, or an increase of 164 per cent. The total tonnage moved upstream 
in 1914 is 3,312 tons, against 4,170 tons in 1913, or a decrease of 20 per cent. 

Mileage. —The total mileage traversed in 1914 was 9,730 miles, against 5,740 miles 
in 1913, or an increase of 70 per cent. 

Ton-miles. —The ton-mileage of 1914 was downstream 1,848,956, against 700,000 in 
1913, and upstream 1,249,782, against 1,710,000 in 1913, or a total of 3,098,738, against 
2,410,000 in 1913, showing an increase of 688,738 ton-miles, or 27.7 per cent. 

Speed of operation. —The down trips were made in as short a time as 46£ hours and 
as long a time as 600 hours, or have ranged from 2 days to 25 days. During the first 

E art of the season, until June 30, the average elapsed time for the down trip was 108 
ours and the average elapsed time for the up trip was 120 hours. In the second part 
of the season, however, the average elapsed time for the down trip was 300 hours and 
for the up trip 212 hours. This is due to the trouble the boat and barges experienced 
in the low-water season. The lighterage system, arrangements for which have been 
made for 1915 by the construction of four lighters, will improve these conditions in 
the low-water period for 1915. The actual running hours downstream averaged 45 
hours and upstream 90 hours for the whole season and the various barges. 

Fuel consumption. —The fuel consumption for 1914 was 6,233 barrels, at a value of 
$5,775.26, or at a price of 93 cents per barrel, against the fuel consumption in 1913 of 
coal and oil at a value of $5,919.53. As the tonnage hauled in 1914 was 7,613 tons, 
against the 1913 tonnage of 5,881 tons, the actual fuel cost per ton has been reduced 
from $1 in 1913 to 76 cents in 1914, or an improvement of 24 per cent. 

Cost of transportation. —The cost of transportation has been reduced from 7.1 mills 
in 1913 to 5.5 mills in 1914, or by 22.6 per cent; the terminal expense has been reduced 
from 87 cents per ton in 1913 to 55^ cents per ton in 1914, or 36 per cent. The total 
cost of operation (transportation plus terminal) has been reduced from $3.76 per ton, 
or 9.24 mills per ton-mile, in 1913 to $2.78 per ton, or 6.86 mills per ton-mile in 1914, 
a reduction of the cost of transportation of 26 per cent. 


24 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


TOWBOAT “ADVANCE.” 

The towboat Advance shows a marked increase of efficiency in 1914 over 1913. Its 
power was increased from 140 to 600 horsepower, resulting in an increase of pushing 
power from 515 ton-miles per running hour upstream in 1913 to 1,290 ton-miles per 
running hour in 1914 upstream, or an increase of 150 per cent. As she was only in 
service from August 3, she had only 131 days of service against 185 in 1913, or if 240 
days are taken as the length of the navigation season she had only 55 per cent service; 
but the tonnage handled per day of service during the low-water season only has in¬ 
creased from 9 tons in 1913 to 26 tons in 1914, or 189 per cent. 

Efficiency .—Of the 131 days in service she was only running 23.6 per cent of the time, 
against 26 per cent of time in 1913; she was laid up for nights 49.7 per cent of her time, 
lost loading and waiting for freight 9.9 per cent, was delayed on account of navigation 
trouble 8.75 per cent, delayed on account of rudder trouble 6.65 per cent, and delayed 
on account of bunkering fuel oil 2.83 per cent. 

Ten days she was laid up for finishing constructional work, 14 days she lost waiting 
for freight, and 8 days on account of insufficient water, leaving her 99 days for actual 
operation, 31 per cent of which time she was actually running, and during which time 
she was transporting 3,414 tons, or 34^ tons per day, and traveling 4,460 miles, or 47 
miles per day, reaching a daily ton-mile capacity of 14,000 ton-miles, or an hourly 
capacity of 585 ton-miles. 

For the 131 days in service, or the season, her daily ton-mile capacity figures 10,600 
ton-miles, and her hourly capacity to 440 ton-miles. 

Tonnage .—The total tonnage moved downstream was 1,966.45 tons in 1914, against 
627£ tons in 1913, showing an increase of 213 per cent. The total tonnage moved up¬ 
stream was 1,447.45 tons in 1914, against 1,065 tons in 1913, showing an increase of 
36 per cent. 

Mileage.— The total mileage traveled in 1914 was 4,660 miles, against 6,560 miles 
in 1913, or a decrease of 29 per cent, as the boat was not put in service before August 
3, 1914, due to work of reconstruction. 

Ton-mileage .—The ton-mileage of 1914 was downstream 708,000 ton-miles, against 
257,275 in 1913, and upstream 493,044 ton-miles in 1914, against 436,650 in 1913, or 
a total of 1,201,044 ton-miles in 1914, against 693,925 in 1913, showing an increase of 
73| per cent. 

Fuel consumption .—The fuel consumption for 1914 w r as 3,147 barrels, representing 
$2,777, or 88 cents per barrel, wffiile in 1913 only 1,634 barrels were consumed, rep¬ 
resenting $1,634, or $1 per barrel. This increase in fuel is due to the increased power 
production, and, if expressed in barrels per ton-mile, 1,201,044 ton-miles were made 
with $2,777 worth of fuel oil, or 1 ton-mile with 2.3 mills cost of fuel oil, while in 1913 
1 ton-mile was made with 2.35 mills cost of fuel oil, showing no increase of fuel con¬ 
sumption per ton-mile in spite of the unfavorable low-water season of 1914. 

Ton-mile capacity .—The ton-mile capacity of the Advance per hour elapsed time 
downstream, which means from the time she left Kansas City to time she arrived in 
St. Louis, has been: 


Downstream trip. 

Ton-miles 
per hour. 

Speed 
(miles per 
hour). 

Barge. 

Downstream trip. 

Ton-miles 
per hour. 

Speed 
(miles per 
hour). 

Barge. 

First. 

720 

1.42 

Endeavor. 

Fourth. 

318 

3.13 

Ensilon 

Second. 

2,630 

4.1 

Gamma. 

Fifth. 

435 

2.3 

Gamma. 

Third. 

1,330 

6.25 

Delta. 

Sixth. 

365 

1.33 

Delta. 






This shows an average downstream capacity of 966 ton-miles per hour and 2.68 
miles per hour speed; and, if the movement of the model barges is considered exclu¬ 
sively, was 1,015 ton-miles per hour, with 3.22 miles per hour speed. 

The average ton-mile capacity and the average speed in miles per hour upstream 
has been as follows: 


Upstream trip. 

Ton-miles 
per hour. 

Speed 
(miles per 
hour). 

Barge. 

Upstream trip. 

Ton-miles 
per hour. 

Speed 
(miles per 
hour). 

Barge. 

First. 

475 

1,270 

346 

1.3 

3.3 
2.58 

Beta. 

Delta. 

Epsilon. 

Fourth 

275 

320 

2.74 

1.25 

Gamma. 

Beta. 

Second. 

Fifth 

Third. 


















































































































































































































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 25 


Therefore, the average upstream capacity was 537 ton-miles and the speed 2.23 
miles per hour. If the movement of the model barges is considered exclusively, the 
average capacity was 630 ton-miles and the speed 2.87 miles per hour, or superior 
to the movement of the heavy barges by 60 per cent in ton-mile capacity and by 
126 per cent in speed. 

Tonnage statement , 1914. 


Boat. 

Down¬ 

stream. 

Upstream. 

Total. 

Advance. 

Tons. 

1,966.45 

928.80 

4,509.65 

Tons. 
1,447.45 
1,512.75 
3,312.20 

Tons. 

3,413.90 

2,441.55 

7,821.85 

Chester. 

A. M. Scott. 

Total. 

7,304.90 

6,472.40 

13,677.30 



Ton-mileage statement. 

TOWBOAT “ADVANCE.” 

Downstream: 

1,966.45 tons, 410 miles.. 

Upstream: 

1,138.95 tons 410 miles. 466, 969 

103.5 tons 50 miles. 5,175 

205 tons 100 miles. 20, 500 


Ton-miles. 
706, 245 


493, 044 


Total Advanet . 1,199, 289 


TOWBOAT “a. M. SCOTT.” 

Downstream: 

4,509.65 tons 410 miles. 1, 848, 956 

Upstream: 

2,982.70 tons 410 miles. 1, 222, 907 

121.50 tons 50 miles. 6,075 

208 tons 100 miles. 20, 800 

- 1, 249, 782 

Total A. M. Scott . 3,098,738 


STEAMER “CHESTER.” 

Downstream, 928.80 tons 410 miles. 380, 808 

Upstream, 1,512.75 tons 410 miles.- 620,227 


Total Chester . 1, 001, 035 


Grand total. 5.299,062 


Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. 


Special report: Comparison 1913 , 1914, and to Oct. 1 , 1915. 



1913 

1914 

Increase 

on 

saving. 

To Oct. 

1, 1915. 

Increase 

on 

saving. 

Tntal t/vn naga haiilad . 

9,784 

19,784 

13,677 

Per cent. 
40 

27,306 

Per cent. 
100 

TYktal Tnilfiapa _ _. 

21,734 

10 

32,004 

47 

Total ton-mileage... 

3,969,845 

$1.24 

5,299,062 

33* 

10,708,344 

104 

Costper ton: 

Fuel expense. 

$0.89 

28 

$0.58 

35 

Wages supplies. 

$3.04 

$2.52 

17 

$0.82 

67 

yrharf labor . 

$0.81 

$0.63 

22 

$0.66 

1 4.7 






Total cost of operation per ton 

$5.09 

$4.04 

20* 

$2.06 

49 

Cost of transportation, wages, supplies, fuel, etc.: 

Par ton ... 

$4.28 

$3.41 

20 

$1.40 

59 

Ppr tnn-mila . 

$0.00103 

$0.0084 

22 

$0.00358 

57 

Tfttal hnat hnnr < ? 

13,265 

300 

12,591 

420 

5 

10,004* 


Ton-miles—boat hours. 

40 

1,075 

156 


1 Loss. 






























































26 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


Report of first half year 1915: Comparison of towboats A. M. Scott and Advance. 


March 1 to June 30. 

A. M. Scott. 

Advance. 

Mileage. 

8,124 

7,198.44 

7,776 

Tonnage. 

6,697.59 
2,565,819 
$1.22 

Ton mileage. 

2,871,496 

$1.27 

Cost per mile. 

Cost per ton. 

81.44 

$1.44 

Transportation per ton mile. 

$0.00348 

$0.00378 

Transportation per day. 

$89.43 

$75.14 



Report of first half year 1915: Comparative cost per day of towboats A. M. Scott and 

Advance. 


Expenditures in dollars. 


March 1 to June 30. 

Misc. 

repairs. 

Wages. 

Fuel. 

Lubrica¬ 

tion. 

Food. 

Misc. 

supplies. 

Misc. 

expense. 

Total. 

A. M. Scott. 

$3. 75 

$33.59 
32.74 

$39.73 
27.30 

$1.19 

$8.57 

$1.63 

$0.99 

$89.43 

Advance. 

4.09 

1.09 

8.78 

1.14 

.39 

75.14 



Memorandum .—Total tonnage to Oct. 17, 1915: A. M. Scott, 14,611.39 tons; Advance, 13,815.19 tons; 
total, 29,032.5 tons. And towing. 


General report: Comparison 1913-1914. 



1913 

1914 

Increase. 


1913 

1914 

Increase. 

Total tonnage 

hauled. 

Total ton-miles. 

Cost per ton: 

Fuel expense... 
Wages-supplies 
Wharf labor.... 
Total cost of opera¬ 
tion. 

9,784 

3,969,845 

$1.24 

$3.04 

$0.81 

$5.09 

13,677 
5,299,062 

$0. 89 
$2. 52 
$0.63 

$4.04 

Per cent. 
40 
33i 

1 28 

17 

22 

20* 

Cost of transporta¬ 
tion (wages, sup¬ 
plies,fuel) per ton. 

Total mileage. 

Total boat hours... 
Ton-miPs — Boat 
hours. 

$4. 28 
19,784 
13,265 

300 

$3.41 

21,734 

12,591 

420 

Per cent. 
20 

210 
15 

MO 


1 Saving. 2 increase. 


Comparison of transportation and terminal expenses, per ton and ton-mile, steamers 
A. M. Scott, Advance, and Chester. Service, Kansas City-St. Louis. Distance, 408 
miles. 1913. 



Towboat 
A. M. Scott. 

Towboat 

Advance. 

Packet 

boat 

Chester. 

Average. 

Transportation expenses: 

Per ton, in dollars. 





$2.80 

$3.99 

$5.91 

$4.23 

Per ton-mile, in mills. 

6.85 

9.75 

14.5 

10.3 

Loading (terminal) expenses: 



Per ton, in dollars. 

$0.87 

$0.95 

$0.77 

.81 

Per ton-mile, in mills. 

2.13 

2.34 

1.89 

2.00 

Total expenses: 



Per ton, in dollars. 

Per ton-mile, in mills. 

$3.67 

$4.94 

$6. 68 

5.04 

8.98 

12.1 

16.3 

12.3 


Towboat A. M. Scott. Division of expenses of operation, per ton and ton-mile. Boat 
in service between Kansas City and St. Louis, 205 days. Distance, 408 miles. 1913. 


Divisions. 

Wages. 

Fuel. 

Food. 

Lubri¬ 

cation. 

Misc. 

ex¬ 

pense. 

Repair. 

Termi¬ 

nal. 

Total. 

Ton¬ 

nage. 

Total expenses. 

Expense per ton. 

Expense per ton-mile, mills.. 

$6.916 
$1.18 
2.9 

$5.919 
$1.00 

2.46 

$2.215 
$0.38 

93 

$0.217 
$0.037 
.091 

$0.538 
$0.092 
.22 

$0. 679 
$0.115 
.28 

$5.136 
$0.87 
2.14 

$21,547 
$3. 67 

9 

$5.881 


Average horsepower, 600. 

Average tonnage upstream, 520. 
Average tonnage downstream, 245. 


Average speed upstream, 3.1 miles. 

Average estimated current, 3 to 4 miles per hour. 
Total running efficiency, 33 per cent. 



















































































TO/HNIN6 Err/C/£ MCY Pert YiAfi 


fee 

90 



AT 

TC KM INALS 





s<l 



LA IO Up 


UNUPIMAT 




9 £ 

•JSi w 

1 


/HKCHIt&HY 





MMt6*n<w 

D6iAy 

9c 

oo 






tQADlNf 




to 

tc 






TU/ANMt 



4 






iff 2 


f°o /oo 




fjff' 


fffj~ 

TC OcT./ sr 


rwsns an Misswt< Hive* fam*T/(j\ (i . 
W*Lr*xS D/c/re* 7W. CcMmec ^ r . 



House Ooc. Ho. V'6 ^ . ®*th Cong., 1 st Seas. 











































































































































































































- 


. 
























































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 27 


Comparison of hours running, delayed by navigation trouble, machinery trouble, loading 
underway and at terminals, bunkering, and delay by darkness, storm, and fog to Oct. 
1, 1915, towboats “A. M. Scott” and “Advance.” 



Running. 

Navigation 

delay. 

Loading under 

way. 

Machinery de¬ 

lay. 

Bunkering. 

Delayed. 

Terminals. 

Total hours 

under way. 

Total hours 

in service. 

d 

P 

Down. 

St. 

Louis. 

Kansas 

City. 

A. M. Scott. 

Honrs... 

2,5393 

156* 

81? 

76? 

212} 

284} 

459? 

452 

637 

3,811 

4,901 


Percent. 

51.8 

3.2 

1.67 

1. 56 

4.32 

5.85 

9. 40 

9.3 

12.9 

77.8 

100 

Advance. 

Hours... 

2,315 

260* 

144} 

157 

178? 

298? 

519* 

289 

940? 

3,873? 

5,103 V 


Percent. 

45.4 

5.1 

2.8 

3.1 

3.6 

5.9 

10 

5.6 

18.5 

75.5 

100 

Total. 

Hours... 

4,854? 

417 

226 

233? 

391 

583 

979} 

741 

1,577? 

7,684? 

10,004V 


Percent. 

48.5 

4.17 

2.26 

2.33 

3.91 

5.83 

9.79 

7.41 

15. 77 

76.8 

100 


Comparison of hours running, delayed by navigation trouble, machinery trouble, loading 
under way and at terminals, bunkering, and delay by darkness, storm, and fog, towboats 
“A. M. Scott” and “Advance ” and steamer “Chester,” 1914. 



Running. 

Loading 

under 

way. 

Naviga¬ 

tion 

delay. 

Machin¬ 

ery 

delay. 

Bunker¬ 

ing. 

Layup. 

Total. 

A. M. Scott. 

1,651 

1,089 

643 

400 

113 

2,369 

6,255 

A d\ance. 

741 

286 

275V 

209* 

89} 

1,585} 

3,144 

Chester. 

1,249 

709* 

270? 

96} 

39? 

826? 

3,192 

Total boat hours. 

3,641 

2,084 V 

1,189} 

705? 

242 

4,781 

12,591 

Percentage of total. 

28.9 

16.5 

9. 45 

5.6 

1.9 

37.65 

100 


Comparison of hours running, delayed by navigation trouble, machinery trouble, loading 
under way and at terminals, bunkering, and delay by darkness, night, and fog, towboats 
“A. M. Scott” and “Advance” and steamer “Chester,” 1913. 



Running. 

Loading 

under 

way. 

Naviga¬ 

tion 

delay. 

Machin¬ 

ery 

delay. 

Bunker¬ 

ing 

Layup. 

Total. 

A. M. Scott. 

1,627 

395 

723 

504 

170 

1,498 

4.920 

Advance. 

1,127 

381 

462 

602 

53 

1,750 

4,385 

Chester. 

1,177 

1,132 

490 

* 

45 

1,004 

3,960 

Total boat hours. 

3,931 

1,908 

1,675 

1,218 

268 

4,252 

13,265 

Percentage of total. 

29.8 

14.4 

12.6 

9.6 

2.0 

32.1 

100 


Operating efficiency Mar. 1 to June 30, 1915, service Kansas City-St. Louis. 


Towboat. 

“A. M. Scott.” 

“Advance.” 

Hours. 

Percent. 

Hours. 

Per cent. 

Hours actually running. 

1,404V 

52 

1,200 

41.5 

Hours navigation trouble. 

73 

2.7 

190? 

6.5 

Hours loading under w r ay. 

47 

2.0 

86* 

3.0 

Hours machinery trouble. 

30 

1.1 

118} 

4.1 

Homs bunkering oil. 

135.5 

5.0 

97 

3.3 

Hours delayed by storm, rain, fog, darkness: 





Upstream. 

188} 

7.0 

194} 

6.6 

Downstream. 

225? 

8.7 

294} 

10.2 

Hours held at St. Louis. 

225 

S. 3 

164 

5.7 

Hours held at Kansas City. 

364 

13.2 

550* 

19.1 

Toial hours in service. 

2,693 

190.0 

2,895* 

100.0 

T'P'cii'Ticy . 


52.0 


41.5 

























































































28 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 
Monthly season’s efficiency, tugboat A. M. Scott, service 261 days, 1914- 



April. 

May. 

June. 

July. 

Au¬ 

gust. 

Sep¬ 

tem¬ 

ber. 

Oc¬ 

to¬ 

ber. 

No¬ 

vem¬ 

ber 

and 

De¬ 

cem¬ 

ber. 

Sea¬ 

son. 

Per 

cent. 

Hours running. 

268f 

347J 

362 

146 

204 

Ill 

96 

115! 

1,651 

26.4 

Hour? loading. 

181 

89 

150 

130 

25 

160 

240 

114 

1,089 

12.4 

Hours navigation . 

49 

51 

5 

130 

123 

3 


282 

643 

10.2 

Hours, propeller and rudder . 

28 

8 


106 

87 

78 

60 

17 

384 

6.1 

Honrs, machinery 




16 





16 

.2 

Hours bunkering. 

15! 

20 

16 

8 

15 

27 

7 

5 

113 

1.8 

Hours, night and fog. 

524* 

2291 

187 

208 

290 

341 

341 

450 

2,369 

31.9 

Total hours in service. 

865 

744 

720 

744 

744 

720 

744 

984 

6,255 

100 


Speed of operation, tugboat A. M. Scott, 1914- 


Trips. 

Downstream. 

Upstream. 

Trips. 

Downstream. 

Upstream. 

Running 

hours. 

Actual 

hours 

elapsed. 

Running 

hours. 

Actual 

hours 

elapsed. 

Running 

hours. 

Actual 

hours 

elapsed 

Running 

hours. 

Actual 

hours 

elapsed. 

1 

49 

176 

107f 

139! 

9 

68 ! 

581 

87 

218! 

2 

35 J 

76! 

77! 

148! 

10 

57! 

179! 

79! 

178! 

3 

42J 

115 

88 ! 

118! 

11 

m 

82! 

81! 

258! 

4 

50 

88 ! 

79! 

95! 

12 

5U 

600 



5 

39f 

98 

103! 

122 ! 

Low wa- 





6 

34! 

52f 

95! 

116! 

ter. 

(50) 

(300) 

(88) 

(212) 

7 

33! 

51| 

80f 

93.| 






8 

31! 

46! 

100 

195 






High wa- 





Total 





ter sea- 





aver- 





son. 

(42) 

(108) 

(90) 

(120) 

age .. 

45 

188 

90 

153 


Monthly and season’s time record, tugboat A. M. Scott. Total days in service, 205. 1913 . 


1913 

May. 

June. 

July. 

August. 

Hours. 

Per 

cent. 

Hours. 

Per 

cent. 

Hours. 

Per 

cent. 

Hours. 

Per 

cent. 

Total hours in service. 

744 

100 

720 

100 

744 

100 

744 

100 

Hours actual running. 

294 

40 

375 

52 

262 

35 

166 

22.5 

Hours loading, unloading. 

132 

18 

69 

10 

94 

13 

48 

6.5 

Hours machinery, boiler repairs. 

107 

14 

29 

4 

211 

28 

2 


Hours navigation trouble. 

33 

4.5 

42 

6 

65 

9 

183 

25 

Hours coaling. 







75 

10 

Hours laid up for night, etc. 

178 

23.5 

198 

28 

112 

15 

270 

36 


1913 

September. 

October. 

November. 

Season. 

Hours. 

Per 

cent. 

Hours. 

Per 

cent. 

Hours. 

Per 

cent. 

Hours. 

Per 

cent. 

Total hours in service. 

720 

100 

744 

100 

504 

100 ' 

4,920 

100 

Hours actual running. 

191 

26 

158 

21 

180 

36 

1,627 

33 

Hours loading, unloading. 

7 

1 

42 

5.5 

3 


395 

8 

Hours machinery, boiler repairs. 

3 


115 

15.5 

37 

7.5 

504 

10 

Hours navigation trouble... 

201 

28 

174 

23 

25 

5 

723 

15.5 

Hours coaling. 

50 

7 

33 

5 

12 

2.5 

170 

3.5 

Hours laid up for night, etc. 

271 

38 

222 

30 

247 

49 

1,498 

80 


Efficiency of operation, 33 per cent. 







































































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 29 


Monthly operating efficiency , towboat Advance , 1914. 



August. 

September. 

October. 

November 
and 12 days in 
December. 

Season. 


Hours. 

Per 

cent. 

Hours. 

Per 

cent. 

Hours. 

Per 

cent. 

Hours. 

Per 

cent 

Hours. 

Per 

cent. 

Hours actual running. 

163 

24.8 

219} 

30.4 

152 

20.2 

206} 

20.8 

741 

23.6 

Hours loading. 

9 

1.8 

80 

11.1 

170 

22.8 

27 

2.7 

286 

9.1 

Hours navigation delay. 

95 

12.9 

4 

.5 

56 

7.2 

120} 

12.1 

275} 

8.75 

Hours machinery delav. 

67 

9.8 

80 

11.4 

1$ 


61 

6.1 

209} 

6.65 

Hours bunkering. 


3 

13 

1.8 

14 

1.4 

45 

4.5 

89} 

2.83 

Hours lay up, night and fog... 

320® 

47.7 

323} 

44.8 

356 

48.4 

548 

53.8 

1,585} 

49.07 

Total hours. 

672 

100 

720 

100 

744 

100 

988 

100 

3,144 

100 



























Operating efficiency per trip , towboat “ Advance ” 1914. 

DOWNSTREAM. 


30 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Sixth. 

Per cent. 

NN005 05 00 

CO rH CM* 05 

rH rH iO 

o 

8 

rH 

Hours. 

rH<rN«He* 

NH'f C^OOCO 
O CO (NGO 

rH 

306 

Fifth. 

Per cent. 

CO 40 40 40 

CO H CO HH 
CM CM ^ 

0 '001 

Hours. 

C5fH 

CO CO O COH 
rr ^ 00 

175 

Fourth. 

Per cent. 

HOHQ0 00 4O 

CM 00 CO ^ 
CO rH ^ 

100.0 

Hours. 

Wl-fHjM 

OHINHCOCO 

tT rH iO 

130 

Third. 

Per cent. 

42.3 

14.8 

.5 

1.9 

40.5 

100.0 

Hours. 

HNHN • H|N 

CO rH 'HH 

CO H • CO 

78 

Second. 

Per cent. 

H 40 40 • 

^ d * • 

r-i * 

45.5 

100.0 

Hours. 

r«-*«NMn • 

CO O 

^ rH • 

• 

• 

• 

HN 

CO 

98 


4-3 

CO CO 40 40 o 

O 


M 

© 

^ H CO rH CO CO 

© 


O 

CM CM 


o 


*-< 





<x> 




4^> 

CO 

Ph 









Ph 


mH 1 HnpH'Hn 


CO 

O CO CO TT C 

CO 

00 


t-. 

1- HCI 

00 




rH 

CM 


O 





M 





a 

w 

Ph 

H 

CO 

Ph 



• 

NOO^HOO 

o 


a 

© 

d cm d co tjJ 

CO ^ 

8 


o 



rH 


t-i 




d 

o 

ra 

<3 

© 

o 

Ph 






coloo 

m 

CO 

OO00NH00 


05 CM CO CO CO 

40 



CO 

rr 

o 


O 

w 



rH 



»o 

l>- 00 05 rH 

o 


05 

HH^ai 

8 


© 

CM 

rH rH Tf 1 





rH 


4h 





a> 




a 

Ph 




4-> 









Ph 


H<N 




-V 


Sh 

05 

CO rH rH CO 

CM 


3 


rH 

CO 


O 





w 





4-> 

d 

O 00 o o o 

o 


CO rr ^ rH CM 40 

d 


o 

TJ1 


o 






Jh 




A 

<D 




Ui 

Ph 




§ 


HN 

«iH «IH* 


Ph 

CO 

>0 N N H CO N 

05 

u* 

CC 

CO 

rr 


3 



rH 


o 





w 





4-> 

o 40 400 o o 

o 


© 

o 

ci iH N H C4 N 

8 


Jh 





© 




d 

H 

2 

Ph 









Has 

nlH Hin«|h< 

coin 


CO 

H 

CO CM CM rH rr CO 

GO 


CO 

rH N 

40 


9 



rH 


o 





W 





4-3 

40 CO ^ O H 40 

o 


a> 

o 

40 r}< CM* rH rH d 

40 CO 

8 






4h 




T) 

a 

a> 

An 
















rHi 

HtMH 


go 

CO 

CO 40 CO HiO 

CO 


CO 


CM 


3 



rH 


o 





w 





+-> 

05 40 t>» 05 CO GO 

o 


© 

rH 1-4 40 05 CM* GO 

d 


O 

CO 

rH CO 

o 







4- 









4-3 

CO 

Ph 









pH 

CO 

nH> 

O 40 GO CM r 



4h 

o 

rH CO CM 

H 


3 

rH 

rH 

CO 


o 





w 





’©'© 

T3X3 


.X! 
3 

.sfe.sa 

77 0 *-» •% 

p— i r-j c3 >pat OJ Pi 
c3 .9 bflJS M d 
d T3 ’> o pj 3 

<3,2 a 

w w 7) w y) co 

o o o o o o 

WWMWWM 


o 

H 


.bO 

..... 0 

• • • • • W-« 

w> : tAtA ^ 
.S -. 2.2 'a 
3 :a,s •+» 

P • P >> 

£ :.2 ss.g a 

a SfeS-S S3 f£ 

§lf“f-g = 

ilsls* 

Vj CO CG Cfi CO W 

H H *h >H u. 

3 3 3 3 3 d 

o o o o o o 

HWMMWa 


o 

H 


























































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 31 


Co 

•*-< 

Oi 


Oo 

s 


3 

o 

•Ki 

GQ 

s 

CO 

© 

60 

sf 

*3 


o 

C<3 


C3 

O 

-O 

CJ5 

S 


a, 

c 

A. 


o 

<w 

ft? 


<5 

W 

P3 

02 

£ 

O 

Q 


tc 

3 

is 

o 

b* 


$ 

<u 

PQ 

Bo 

X2 C- 

<D 

> 

V 

m 


s 

r-H 

<5 


xi 

-*-> 

H 

s 


3 

w 

cCo 

^■o 


P3 

c£ 


3 

o 

P»H 


C3 © 
X! O 
3.3 

-- <J3 

<3 > 

SO 

.B< 

b. - 
** >> 
•T3 T3 
.5 3 
2 05 

hM 


a 

w 

T3 a; 

ea -o 
o 
o 
o> 

02 


C3 

XI 

a 


;« 


- a 

8 

hi 

0) 

d 


§ 

a 


o 

H 


<u 

d 


3 

O 

a 


3 

8 

u. 

a> 

d 


9 

o 

B 


d 


3 

O 

a 


d 


3 

O 

a 


d 


i 

o 

a 


OOONOOO 

oo eo r4 oo ■*« »o 


lO o 

<N* 05 


Tf O 
lO 


H-* 

t'- ^ lO 

■>r oo co 


O »“H 

oo 


He. 

O - 


3 

o 


© 


© 


u 


>-.ia 


5P to ® 

.9 3 3 os M 3. 
9 <3 9 s CS ^ 





















































































Monthly and yearly operating efficiency, towboat “Advance.” Total days in service, 185. 1913. 


32 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, 


MO v TO THE MOUTH. 


Season. 

Per cent. 

O 

© 

o 

rH 

ONIOOOO 

co co o co h 

CM 

Hours. 

4,385 

NH(N!NW 

CM 00 © © © 
rH CO ^ CD 00 

rH rH 

September. 

Per cent. 

100.0 

OCOOi '.CO 

■H 05 • cD 

CM CM • H< 

Hours. 

624 

O 00 CD CM 00 
© © CD 

rH rH (N 

August. 

Per cent. 

100.0 

rr^cDlN^ 

00 © CO © © 
rH CO CO 

Hours. 

744 

CD O O CD (N 

CO H< © 
rH CM CM 

July. 

Per cent. 

100.0 

O CO O CO 

CO CD id CP CD 
COH CO 

Hours. 

744 

DDOcDO 

H H ■rfi CD 1- 
ClH CM 

June. 

Per cent. 

100.0 

8.2 

3.6 

43.5 

43.5 

Hours. 

720 

DCDHNN 
© CM H H 

CO CO 

May. 

Per cent. 

o 

© 

o 

rH 

t^l>00 
cm cd r-i 05 cm 

CO rH TJH 

Hours. 

744 

HOCOIMOO 

^OHNH 

CM H CO 

4 days in Mar. and 
April. 

Per cent. 

o 

© 

o 

rH 

OOUhtc 

tDNHHTji 

00 H T* 

Hours. 

809 

00 00 <N o 00 

05 00 t-H »0 
<N r-t 00 

1913 

Total. 

Running. 

Loading. 

Navigation delay. 

Machinery delay. 

Lay up. 


S 

<1 

« 

P 

m 

P4 

P 
02 
Ph 
i—i 

« 

Eh 

A 

fc 

P 

O 

P5 


o 

>> 


8 

P 


Seventh. 

Per cent. 

100.0 

o »o o o o 

rH rti H 1 © 

CO CM CO 

t 

CO 

i 

o 

A 

CM 

CO 

CO 

rH © CM © © 

O rH GO CO 

rH rH 

Sixth. 

Per cent. 

100.0 

ONOMO 

O ion)® 

<M CO CO 

Hours. 

00 

CM 

ID 

00 © 00 CO 

o 00 CM o 

rH rH CM 

Fifth. 

Per cent. 

100.0 

ONCO»DO 

rH rH 00 CM 

CD CM 

Hours. 

ID 

rH 

(DMIOHO 

o >-i eo 

Fourth. 

Per cent. 

o 

© 

o 

rH 

O CM O CD 

CD rH ^ ID 

CD CM 

CO 

1 

w 

H< 

rH 

CO rH 00 

rH TJ1 

rH 

Third. 

Per cent. 

o 

© 

o 

rH 

65.5 

1.0 

3.0 

33.5 

Hours. 

00 

rH 

Ho* 
U- rH 

05 

_He* 

00 

Second. 

Per cent. 

o 

© 

o 

rH 

61.0 

1.1 

oo 

rH N 

CO 

Hours. 

rH 

rH 

CM 

O 

rH 

CM H< 

CD 

First. 

Per cent. 

o 

o 

o 

rH 

O ID ID 

CO CM 

CO 

O 

© 

H< 

1 

CO 

1 

A 

CO 

o 

CM 

05 ID 05 

O 

rH 

o 

00 


w 

Eh 

02 

£ 

o 

A 

02 

A 

i—i 

P5 

P 

A 

55 

P 

o 

Ph 


o 

O^OOOO 

© 

dco 

L- © 

o 

CO 

CM CO 

rH 



O 

CO Oi <N 00 00 

ID 


© © 

CM 



O 

© ID © © © 

cd oo © 


rH 

© 

rH 



o 

© cm © r- 

CO 

lOINNiNOl 

CO 


rH 

o 

OO '• 

• © 

© 

CM 00 I 

! © 

o 

ID rH • 

• CO 

rH 




rH H< . 

! CM 


H< rH • 

• CM 

o 

CO • 

• o 

© 

CO CD • 

! © 

o 

© 

• CO 

rH 



• 

He* • 

. hn 

o 

© Tt« • 

• © 

CD 

CO 

• rH 

O 

© © © 

• © 

© 

CD 00 00 


© 

Hi 

• CO 

rH 




HC* 

• rflf) 

H< 

© 00 

• © 

© 

CO 

• CO 

© 

ooo 

• © 

© 

00 CO 05 

• © 

© 

CO rH 

• H< 

rH 



HN 

He* 


rH 

© CM 00 

• © 

© 

CO rH 

• CO 

© 

© © © 

• © 

8 

rH CO CO 
© 

• CM 

. H« 

rH 




HIM 

• HC* 

H< 

CO CO CM 

. © 

00 

H< 

• CO 


•a 

o 

p 


o 

Eh 



•9&-J §* 

p >1 A 

D o 03 C3 c3 

PP£SP 
























































































Monthly operating efficiency, steamer “Chester” Total days in service, 165. 1913. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 33 


Total season. 

Per cent. 

O 

8 

rH 

OOWNO 

© 04 04 rH 

Whh h* 

Hours. 

3,960 

1,177 

552 

490 

112 

1,629 

September and 3 
days in October. 

Per cent. 

100.0 

o ■'P t" i-H cc 

to lO lO CO 
rH 00 ^ 

Hours. 

792 

OcC^hN 

rH 04 OO 

August. 

Per cent. 

100.0 

04 © © • © 

© © © • © 

04 -h 04 -CO 

Hours. 

744 

• hJ« 

HMO • © 

04 t-h . 04 

July. 

Per cent. 

O'001 

I'*- CO 

©©©04 0- 

© © rH 00 © 

CO 04 CO 

Hours. 

744 

© 04 00 rH t>- 

June. 

Per cent. 

100.0 

© © 00© rH 

© r>» co csi 

^ rH CO 

Hours. 

O 

04 

04 04 © © 

00 04 Ol rH 1- 
04 rH 04 

May. 

Per cent. 

o 

o 

© 

© 00 N (N N 
©* © * 04 Ht? 

CO rH 

Hours* 

552 

04 r>» Tf iO^ 

©00 r-TP 

04 04 

April. 

Per cent. 

© 

© 

© 

© © © © 

© © rf CO CO 

CO rH 

Hours. 

00 

© 

© © © © 

04 © 04 rH 

1913 

Total service.... . 

ctual running . 

oading, unloading. 

avigation trouble . 

achinery trouble . 

ay up for night, fog . 




.J 

a 


H. Doc. 463, 64-1-3 












































34 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

Record of round trips, 1915. 


Round trip. 

“A. M. Scott." 

“Advance." 

Days. 

Hours. 

Days. 

Hours. 

First. 

10 

10} 

11 

221 

Second. 

12 

4} 

8 

82 

Third. 

15 

131 

10 

10} 

Fourth. 

7 

10J 

16 

13 

Fifth. 

9 

9 

9 

3 

Sixth. 

8 

2* 

14 

5} 

Seventh. 

9 

10} 

7 

32 

Eighth . 

10 

6 

7 

132 

Ninth. 

5 

18 

11 

13} 

Tenth... 

7 

4} 

8 

3} 


Round trip. 

“A. M. Scott." 

“Advance." 

Days. 

Hours. 

Days. 

Hours. 

Eleventh. 

8 


6 

132 

12 

Twelfth. 

7 

23} 

7 

Thirteenth. 

7 

23 

6 

21 

Fourteenth. 

8 

2} 

9 

2 

Fifteenth. 

13 

102 

8 

1 } 

Sixteenth. 

11 

22 

10 

12} 

Seventeenth. 

5 

12} 

6 

11 

Eighteenth. 

8 

9} 

6 

12 

Nineteenth. 

8 

3 

7 

11} 

Twentieth. 

11 

16} 

11 

3 


Record of round trips , 1914. 


Round trip. 

“A. M. Scott." 

“Advance." 

“Chester." 

Days. 

Hours. 

Days. 

Hours. 

Days. 

Hours. 

First. 

18 

8} 

30 

1 

17 

21 

Second. 

11 

9 

10 

4 

11 

14} 

Third. 

10 

21} 

14 

2} 

13 

2} 

Fourth. 

8 

6} 

22 

14 

9 

3} 

Fifth. 

10 

1} 

22 

10 

11 

1 

Sixth. 

11 

22 



10 

12 

Seventh. 

8 

17 



13 

7h 

Eighth. 

15 

17 



14 

3} 

N inth. 

33 

9 



19 

6} 

Tenth. 

16 

10} 




Eleventh. 

42 

7} 











Average. 

17 

8 

19 

20} 

13 

7} 


Record of round trips, 1913. 


Round trip. 

“A. M. Scott.” 

“Advance." 

“Chester.” 

Days. 

Hours. 

Days. 

Hours. 

Days. 

Hours. 

First. 

12 

18 

15 

T 

16 

1 

Second. 

14 

7 

15 

15 

11 

12 

Third. 

11 

7} 

13 

1 

11 

3} 

Fourth. 

12 

13} 

15 

11 

12 

13} 

Fifth. 

21 

12 

19 

11} 

12 

3f 

Sixth. 

59 

} 

13 

7 

13 

22 

Seventh. 

35 

14 

38 

12 

17 

2 

Eighth. 



27 

2 

20 

1} 

3 

Ninth. 





35 







Average. 

23 

10} 

14 

15} 

16 

14} 


Tonnage, mileage, and ton-mileage of the fleet of the Kansas City Missouri River Navi¬ 
gation Co. from beginning of navigable season until June 30. 



1913 

1914 

Percentage 
of increase 
in 1914. 

1915 

Percentage 
of increase 
in 1915. 

Mileage. 

Tonnage. 

Ton-mileage. 

Days of service. 

Tonnage per day. 

Miles per day. 

10,408 
3,642.5 
1,456,800 

95 

38 

105 

15,300 

10,100 

5,827. 8 
2,331,120 

97 

60 

101 

24,000 

Per cent. 

13 

60 

60 

2 

58 

16,470 
14,000 
5,360,965 

121 
116 
136 
44,500 

Per cent. 

64 

140 

130 

25 

93 

30 

85 

Ton-miles per day. 

67 


1 Decrease. 































































































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 35 


Fuel consumption (in barrels and dollars ) per round trip Mar. 1 to June 30—Service 

Kansas City to St. Louis. 


Trip No. 

Barrels. 

Value. 

Towboat A. N. Scott: 

First trip up. 

285.07 

8214.60 

First round trip. 

603.12 

443.31 

Second round trip. 

836. 64 

673.74 

Third round trip. 

884.34 

598. 25 

Fourth round trip. 

484.00 

343.75 

Fifth round trip. 

448.35 

322.22 

Sixth round trip. 

528.60 

390.25 

Seventh round trip.... 

575.85 

413.19 

Eighth round trip. 

705. 71 

521.30 

Ninth round trip. 

496.00 

389.85 

Total. 

5,847.68 

4,310. 46 


Trip No. 

Barrels. 

Value. 

Towboat Advance: 

First trip up.,. 

261.45 

8182.93 

First round trip. 

447.85 

315.68 

Second round trip. 

484.32 

362.26 

Third round trip. 

462.95 

320.61 

Fourth round trip. 

560.50 

558.06 

Fifth round trip. 

416.71 

335.27 

Sixth round trip. 

571.21 

430. 78 

Seventh round trip.... 

429*14 

323.09 

Eighth round trip. 

456.61 

343.17 

Ninth round trip. 

460.40 

359.63 

Total. 

4,591.14 

3,531.48 


cost per ton 58 cents. Advance, total tonnage, 6,530; cost per ton 54 

and speed , Mar. 1 to June 30, 1915, upstream—Service, 
Kansas City to St. Louis. 

(Distance, 408 miles.) 

TOWBOAT A. N. SCOTT (700 HORSEPOWER). 


A. N. Scott, total tonnage, 7,408; 
cents. 

Tonnage, ton-miles per hour, 


Trip No. 


9.. 

10 . 


Barge. 

Running 

time. 

Elapsed 

time. 

Ton¬ 

nage. 

Ton- 

miles, 

running 

hour. 

Ton- 

miles, 

elapsed 

hour. 

Speed, 

running 

hour. 

Speed, 

elapsed 

hour. 

Delta. 

72.00 

137.00 

113.26 

646 

340 

5.7 

3.00 

Alpha. 

108.45 

139.45 

243.49 

915 

720 

3.7 

2.9 

G. K. 

141.30 

216.00 

397.46 

1,150 

760 

2.9 

1.9 

Alpha. 

119.00 

169.00 

491.15 

1,700 

1,200 

3.44 

2.43 

Gamma.... 

87.00 

98.45 

295.70 

1,375 

1,215 

4.70 

4.1 

Alpha. 

113.30 

137.30 

471.50 

1,690 

1,415 

3.60 

3.00 

Epsilon.... 

89.50 

132.00 

320. 75 

1,440 

1,000 

4.5 

3.1 

Endeavor.. 

111.40 

145.30 

560.27 

2,010 

1,550 

3.66 

2.8 

Beta. 

127.40 

190.00 

553. 40 

1,770 

1,190 

3.20 

2.15 

Delta. 

86. 4o 

92.40 

425. 20 

1,965 

1,870 

4.73 

4.42 

Average. 

110.08 

146.00 

387.9 

1,466 

1.126 

3.72 

2.8 


TOWBOAT ADVANCE (600 HORSEPOWER). 

« 


1. 

Gamma.... 

72.30 

155.15 

328.84 

1,850 

860 

5.65 

2.62 

2. 

Epsilon_ 

74.50 

139.00 

270. 69 

1, 445 

800 

5. 45 

3.00 

3. 

Delta. 

77.15 

102.00 

226.56 

1,210 

910 

5.35 

4.00 

4. 

Endeavor.. 

95.15 

151.30 

350.67 

1,500 

945 

4.30 

2.7 

5. 

D. E. 

128.15 

172.00 

573.25 

1,830 

1,350 

3.2 

2.37 

6. 

Endeavor.. 

82.15 

119.00 

550.41 

2, 750 

1,900 

5.00 

3.44 

7. 

Beta. 

126. 00 

265. 45 

480. 60 

1,560 

730 

3.25 

1.54 

8. 

Delta. 

76. 00 

101.45 

272.50 

1, 470 

1,090 

5.40 

4.00 

9. 

Gamma.... 

76.15 

98.30 

237.96 

1 ,270 

'988 

5.34 

4.15 


Alpha. 

135.45 

183.45 

362. 70 

1,088 

810 

3.00 

2.22 


Average. 

94.42 

148.30 

365.42 

1,597 

1,038 

4.35 

2.75 


Note.— Endeavor, 233 by 41 by 7; Alpha and Beta, 200 by 36 by 8; Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon, 156 by 
30 by & 












































































































36 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

“A. M. Scott.” — Speed, tonnage, ton-miles, and fuel per trip, high and low water season, 

and season, 1914- 


High-water season: 

First round trip_ 

Second round trip... 
Third round trip.... 
Fourth round trip.. 
Filth round trip 
Sixth round trip 
Seventh round trip.. 

Total. 

Low-water season: 

Eighth round trip... 
Ninth round trip...’. 
Tenth round trip... 
Eleventh round trip 
Twelfth round trip.. 

Total. 

Grand total. 


High-water season: 

First round trip. 

Second round trip... 
Third round trip.... 
Fourth round trip... 

Fifth round trip. 

Sixth round trip_ 

Seventh round trip.. 

Total. 

Low-water season: 

Eighth round trip... 
Ninth round trip.... 
Tenth round trip.... 
Eleventh round trip 
Twelfth round trip.. 

Total. 

Grand total. 


Speed, miles per hour. 

Tonnage. 

Down. 

Up. 







Down. 

Up. 





Running. 

Actual. 

Running. 

Actual. 



8.30 

2.32 

3.80 

2.94 

176.7 

123.4 

11.50 

5.35 

5.3 

1.75 

98.4 

205.1 

9.70 

3.55 

4.7 

3.46 

398.1 

198.6 

8.15 

4.50 

5.15 

4.30 

588.5 

313.8 

10. 30 

4.20 

4.0 

3.32 

169.2 

403.2 

12.00 

7.80 

4.3 

3.50 

442.5 

241.5 

12.20 

7.90 

5.1 

4.38 

541.3 

231.9 

10.3 

5.09 

4.62 

3.52 

2,114.7 

1,847.5 

13.00 

8.85 

4.08 

2.10 

176.3 

323.0 

6.00 

.70 

4.70 

1.87 

1,186.0 

296.5 

7.10 

2.28 

5.88 

2. 30 

149.35 

230.4 

9.20 
8.00 

5.00 
.68 

5.00 

1.58 

318.65 
264.50 

285.4 

208.0 



8 . 66 

3.5 

4.91 

1.96 

2,094.80 

1,343.3 

9.15 

4. 42 

4.73 

3.00 

374 

276 


Ton-miles. 

Fuel per round trip. 

Down. 

Up. 








.. 1 





Barrels. 

v aiue. 

Running. 

Actual. 

Running. 

Actual. 



1,460 

410 

468 

363 

551.26 

.¥584. 34 

1,130 

525 

1,085 

565 

412. 00 

407. 88 

3,840 

1,410 

1,400 

1,035 

420.4 

397.28 

4, S00 

2,650 

1,770 

1,475 

374.0 

345.58 

1,740 

710 

1,620 

1,340 

420.5 

377. 95 

5,300 

3,440 

1,030 

845 

521.0 

464.59 

6,600 

4,180 

1,080 

930 

411.5 

338. 74 

3; 553 

1,918 

1,206 

936 

444.38 

416.61 

"2,300 

1,160 

1,315 

680 

484.5 

413.65 

7,120 

830 

1,400 

555 

873 

786. 65 

1,060 

342 

1,350 

530 

473 

435. 70 

2,930 

1,600 

1,415 

450 

682 

644. 95 

2,120 

180 


. 

550 

521.30 

13,106 

902 

1,370 

554 

6,166.0 

5,604. 50 

3,366 

1,495 

1,266 

796 

516. 89 

476. 58 


Towboat “Advance.” — Tonnage, speed, and ton-miles per trip, 1914. 


Trip No. 

Tonnage. 

Miles per hour. 

Miles per 
elapsed hour. 

Ton-i 

Running hours. 

niles. 

Elapsed hours. 


Down. 

Up. 

Total. 

Down. 

. up- 

Down. 

Up. 

Down. 

Up. 

Down. 

Up. 

1 . 

506.4 

365.2 

871.6 

5.85 

4.08 

1.42 

1.3 

2,960 

1,500 

720 

475 

2 . 

643.5 

384.25 1,077.75 

9.5 

6.2 

4.1 

3.3 

6,100 

2,380 

2,630 

1,270 

3. 

255.0 

134.15 

389.15 

12.4 

6.2 

5.25 

2.58 

3,160 

830 

1,330 

'346 

4... 

101.85 

100.7 

202.55 

10.0 

6.42 

3.13 

2. 74 

1,018 

642 

'318 

274 

5. 

189.1 

258.0 

447.1 

8.75 

4.3 

2.3 

1.25 

1,650 

1,100 

435 

320 

6. 

270.4 


270.4 

7.15 


1.25 


1,950 


364 









































































































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 37 


Towboat “ Advance” — Tonnage, speed, and ton-miles per trip, 1914 —Continued. 

FUEL. 


Barrels. 

Value. 

Trip No. 

Barrels. 

Value. 

704.34 

$629.67 

4. 

403.44 

$319. 87 

341.00 

315. 61 

5. 

871.69 

788.88 

390.23 

338.41 

6 . 

436.38 

384. 48 



Total. 

3,147. OS 

2, 776. 92 


Steamer “Chester.”- — Speed, tonnage, ton-miles, and fuel, season 1914. 


(Apr. 15 to Aug. 25, 133 days.) 


Round trip No. 

Speed, miles per hour. 

Tonnage. 

Down. 

Up. 

Down. 

Up. 

Running. 

Actual. 

Running. 

Actual. 


10.4 

3.6 

4.1 

1.5 

64.8 

198.4 


9.2 

3.85 

4.7 

3.03 

162.1 

169.3 


9.4 

4.8 

4.6 

2.1 

114.1 

193.0 


11.33 

5.55 

4.3 

4.08 

115.7 

178.2 


11.2 

6.1 

4.05 

2.82 

58.7 

150. 7 


10.3 

5. 75 

4.37 

3.37 

160.6 

188.8 


10.3 

5.6 

4.0 

1.9 

90.0 

172.35 


7. 25 

3.24 

4.25 

2.4 

122. 6 

120.0 


8.25 

3.22 

4.0 

1.4 

40.2 

142.0 

Tntal 





928.8 

1,512.75 








Average. 

9.8 

4.64 

4.26 

2.5 

103 

163 


Ton-miles. 

Fuel. 

Round trip No. 

Down. 

Up. 








Barrels. 

Value. 


Running. 

Actual. 

Running. 

Actual. 




570 

232 

810 

300 

607.4 

$489.05 


1,490 

625 

800 

520 

466 

381. 66 


1,070 

550 

685 

310 

538.8 

389.05 


1,030 

640 

765 

725 

469.7 

332. 88 


655 

358 

610 

425 

421 

317.28 


1,650 

920 

825 

635 

398.8 

270.72 


935 

500 

6S0 

320 

490.0 

358.82 


950 

395 

510 

288 

478.1 

370. 87 


330 

129 

570 

200 

640.1 

555.04 

Total. 

8,680 

4,390 

6,255 

3,723 

4,510.2 

3,465.37 

Average. 

965 

482 

700 

414 

501 

386.00 




















































































38 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

“A. M. Scott”—Tonnage and speed record, 1913. 

[Total days in service, 205.] 


Trip. 

Tonnage. 

Miles per hour. 

Ton-miles per hour. 

Down. 

Up. 

Total. 

Down. 

Up. 

Down. 

Up. 

Total. 

la. 


279.5 

279.5 


4.07 


1.130 

1.130 

1. 


366.5 

366.5 

10.3 

3.88 


1.425 

1.425 

Special... 

8.0 


8.0 






2. 

62.5 

487.0 

549.5 

11.3 

2. 63 

.705 

1.280 

1.985 

3. 

51.0 

618.5 

669.5 

10.3 

4 

.525 

2. 480 

3. 005 

4. 

7.5 

444.5 

452.5 

10.3 

3.2 

.775 

1.420 

2.195 

5. 

711.5 

488.5 

1,200.0 

8.7 

3 

6.160 

1.460 

7. 620 

6. 

545.0 

870. 75 

1,415. 75 

7.6 

1.6 

4.120 

1.400 

5. 520 

7. 

324.0 

614. 75 

939. 75 

6.4 

2.4 

2.080 

V 470 

3. 550 

Total. 

1,709.5 

4,170.00 

5,881. 00 



14.365 

12.065 

26. 430 










Average tonnage down, 245; average tonnage up, 520; average speed up, 3.1 miles per hour; average ton- 
miles per hour down, 2.040; average ton-miles per hour up, 1.540. 


u Advance” — Tonnage, speed, and fuel, 1913. 


Advance with barge 

PI and y. 

Tonnage. 

Miles per hour. 

Ton-miles per hour. 

Oil 

fuel. 

Down. 

Up. 

Total. 

Down. 

Up. 

Down. 

Up. 

Total. 

Barrels. 

Trip 1. 

67.3 

109.3 

176.6 

9.5 

3.75 

640 

410 

1,050 

230 

Trip 2. 

86.5 

128. 6 

215.1 

11.5 

4.13 

1,000 

530 

1,530 

185 

Trip 3. 

41.5 

123. 7 

165.2 

10.5 

4.25 

435 

525 

960 

185 

Trip 4. 

22 

99.6 

101.8 

10.4 

3.6 

23 

360 

383 

185 

Trip 5. 


170.0 

170.0 


4.0 


680 

680 

139 

Trip 6. 

88.5 

177.8 

266.3 

10.0 

3. 82 

885 

680 

1,565 

185 

Trip 7. 

212.3 

113.2 

325.5 

7.2 

3.8 

1,530 

430 

1,960 

275 

Trip 8. 

129.2 

132.8 

268.0 

5.6 

3.96 

725 

520 

1,245 

250 

Total. 

627.5 

1,065.0 

1,692.5 

I 

5,238 

4,135 

9,373 

1,634 




I 




Average tonnage down, 90; average tonnage up, 133; average speed up, 3.94 miles; average ton-mileage 
down, 6.55 per hour; average ton-mileage up, 5.15 per hour. 


Steamer “ Chester ”—Tonnage and speed record, 1913 , 

[Total days in service, 165.] 


Trip No. 

Tonnage. 

Miles per hour. 

Ton-miles per hour. 

Down. 

Up. 

Total. 

Down. 

Up. 

Down. 

Up. 

Total. 

1. 

157 

149 

306 

1077 

4.47 

1,680 

570 

2,250 

2. 

25.5 

166.8 

192.3 

10.5 

5.03 

268 

835 

1,103 

3. 

33.5 

151.5 

185.0 

11.1 

4.8 

372 

725 

1,097 

4. 

20 

166.25 

186.25 

10.6 

3.6 

222 

600 

822 

5. 

29 

212. 25 

241.25 

10.8 

5.03 

300 

1,065 

1,365 

6. 

32. 75 

197 

229. 75 

11.7 

5.03 

382 

1,020 

1,402 

7. 

168.5 

139 

307.5 

8.5 

4.15 

1,430 

580 

2,010 

8. 

90.5 

111.6 

202.1 

7.0 

4.42 

635 

492 

1 ,127 

9. 

135. 25 

126. 25 

261.5 

8.6 

4.0 

1,160 

505 

i; 665 

Total. 

6t2. 00 

1,519.65 

2,111.65 



6,449 

6; 392 

12, 841 







Average tonnage down, 77; average tonnage up, 169; average speed up, 4.5 miles; average ton-miles per 
hour down, 720; average ton-miles per hour up, 710. 




































































































>£> 

CO 

<£> 

xfr 

d 

o 

Q 

X 





K' 

O 


<o 


</> 



k 

'Cc 


k 

o 

o 

to 

k 

tc 

0 

SQ 

* 

KS 

-i 

3: 


U] 

Uj 

^5 


s 


k J 






k 

N*> 

K 

k 



* S 

Q 5 

1 g 

R; ^ 



| 

% 

$L 


k 


Q) 

<5 


A. 


I 


« 


\ 























Jo 'os/hocrf /\c/is<7/7c<? 'was/?//?? £><7/yr /EocTocn/or occr cross///^, 























. Doc. 463, 64-1. 












Doc. 463. 64-1 




























boo /W /1/oi’ce OiiLTn 

































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 39 


Steamer Chester”—Trip record and fuel consumption , 1913. 


Trip No. 

Total 

days 

per 

trip. 

Total hours. 

Running hours. 

Efficiency. 

Round 

trip 

effi¬ 

ciency. 

Fuel 

con¬ 

sump¬ 

tion, 

round 

trip. 

Down. 

Up. 

Down. 

Up. 

Down. 

Up. 







Per ct. 

Per ct. 

Per ct. 1 

Barrels. 

1. 

17 

102 

194 

38 

91 

37.4 

47.4 

32.7 

583 

2. 

14 

79.5 

136 

38* 

81 

48 

60 

37 

557 


12 

71.5 

122J 

37 

85 

51.5 

70 

43.7 

E05 

4.. 

15 

77. 75 

170? 

381 

112? 

50 

66 

42 

661 


14 

92 

1304 

37f 

81? 

41 

63.2 

36.8 

450 

6. 

17 

64. 75 

178? 

35 

81? 

54 

46 

28.4 

496 

7. 

19 

| 99.75 

214 

48* 

981 

50 

45.8 

32 

602 

8.... 

21 

! 304 

147 

58* 

92 

15 

62.6 

30 

550 

9 

36 

87 

684 

47* 

101 \ 

55 

15 

16 

600 


APPEAL FROM THE CONCLUSION OF LIEUT. COL. HERBERT DEAKYNE, CORPS OF ENGI¬ 
NEERS, ON MISSOURI RIVER PROJECT—MISSOURI RIVER, MO., MOUTH TO KANSAS 
CITY-BEFORE THE BOARD OF ENGINEERS FOR RIVERS AND HARBORS, WASHING¬ 

TON, D. C. 

August 17, 1915. 

To the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, 

Southern Building, Washington, D. C. 

Gentlemen: By a notification dated August 4, 1915, signed by Lieut. Col. Herbert 
Deakyne, Corps of Engineers, United States Army, district officer in charge of the 
improvement of the Missouri River, we are advised that the district officer has filed 
with your board a report recommending the abandonment of the present project of 
improving the Missouri River from Kansas City to the mouth and the adoption of a 
“ modified” project providing for an appropriation for the purposes of snagging only. 
We desire to unite as representatives of the commercial interests of the Missouri and 
Mississippi Valleys in a formal protest against the approval of this report and to request 
an oral hearing upon the same. The grounds of our protest are as follows: 

First. The project for the improvement of the Missouri River from the mouth to 
Kansas City was adopted by Congress by the rivers and harbors act of July 25, 1912, 
in accordance with the report in House Document No. 1287, Sixtv-first Congress, 
third session. The estimated cost was to be $20,000,000, with a view to completion 
within 10 years. This formal adoption of the project by Congress was not hastily 
made. It was the result of a series of regular and special examinations, surveys and 
reports beginning in 1905. Congress had authorized a survey and report upon the 
Missouri River between Kansas City and the mouth, and in pursuance thereof the 
then district officer, Maj. Schulz, submitted a detailed plan for such improvement 
which was approved by all of the channels of the War Department and whi h appears 
in House Document No. 1121, Sixtieth Congress, second session. By this report it 
appears that a complete and feasible engineering plan had been worked out for securing 
and maintaining a 6-foot channel from Kansas City to the mouth, at the estimated cost 
of $20,000,000. In the rivers and harbors act of June 25, 1910, an appropriation was 
made by Congress of $1,000,000 for the p >rmanent improvement of the Missouri River, 
accompanied by a provision for a reexamination of the project from an engineering 
standpoint by a special board of Army engineers. This reexamination was had and 
the plan of improvement previously submitted by Maj. Schulz was approved in all of 
its general features. Congress thereupon, with full advice and a careful examination 
and reexamination of the engineering possibilities of the improvement, adopted the 
project in the rivers and harbors act of July 25, 1912. In all Congress has made six 
appropriations for the permanent improvement of the Missouri River since June 25, 
1910. aggregating $6,250,000. 

Second. Whatever doubt may have previously existed as to the feasibility from an 
engineering standpoint of securing and maintaining a 6-foot channel from Kansas City 
to the mouth has been resolved by the careful examination and favorable reports of a 
number of competent engineer officers of the United States, by independent examina¬ 
tions and reexaminations. The question of the feasibility of the project and the 
possibility of accomplishing it for the estimated cost is no longer in doubt. In fact, 
the recent adverse report of the district engineer expressly confirms this question and 
states without qualification that the progress so far made indicates that the engineering 
plan is sound and that a 6-foot channel can be secured for the amount of the original 
































40 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


estimate of $20,000,000. No question therefore occurs upon the cost of the project or 
its feasibility from an engineering standpoint. 

Third. The United States has expended and contracted on the permanent improve¬ 
ment of the Missouri River since 1910 the sum of $6,250,000. Much of the work done 
under this has been in rectifying the channel preliminary to further improvement. 
A considerable portion of this amount has been expended in the purchase and con¬ 
struction of a plant for that purpose. The Government now owns a plant valued at 
more than $500,000, specially built and adapted for the improvement of the Missouri 
River. This plant and the preliminary bank improvement which has been so far 
made will be substantially a total I 033 if the project is abandoned. In addition to this 
there has been assembled on the Missouri River a large number of independent con¬ 
tractors who have equipped themselves to do standard revetment and other work 
necessary on the project and who are prepared to accept contracts at low prices based 
upon a continuance of the work by the Government. If the work be abandoned even 
for one season these contractors must take their force and equipment elsewhere and it 
would cause increased delay and expense to again secure responsible contractors for 
the work. The most economical way for the Government to proceed, as stated by the 
report of the district officer, is to make the appropriations based upon the completion 
of the work in 10 years. The failure to keep these appropriations up to the contem¬ 
plated amount has so far increased materially the cost of the work and the abandon¬ 
ment of the project with an indefinite view of resuming it at some future time would 
be the height of extravagance and business folly. 

Fourth. As the adverse report of the district officer admits the feasibility of the 
project, the accuracy of the estimate of cost, and the time of completion, the sole 
remaining question is that of the commercial value of the project. Contrast his 
individual opinion with that of such eminent engineers as D. W. Lockwood, colonel, 
Corps of Engineers, senior member of the board, and Gen. W. H. Bixbv. In 1903, 
prior to the expenditure of any part of the $6,250,000 before referred to and prior to 
the creation and operation of the Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co.’s line 
of boats, in House Document No. 1120, Sixtieth Congress, second session, page 59, 
Col. Lockwood, reporting upon the Missouri River condition, approved the reports 
of the Missouri River Commission made in 1902. He says: 

“In regard to the commerce of this river, the following statement, contained in the 
report of the commission for 1902, is believed to be applicable at the present time: 
In its present condition it has very little commerce, for the reason that the difficulty 
of navigation will not justify the running of boats, and insurance can not be obtained 
except at exorbitant rates. No growth of commerce could be expected until the 
river is opened to the mouth to give it an outlet. If the amount of its existing com¬ 
merce is to be used as a measure of its worthiness for improvement, it might as well, 
as has been facetiously proposed, be wiped off the map for internal improvements. 
If its capacity for improvement and the possibilities of its use as a highway of cheap 
transportation for a large section of country and a numerous population be considered, 
its worthiness takes high rank.” 

And in the same report he declared: “The improvement of the Missouri River 
under the plan proposed would, in the opinion of the board, be advisable.” 

Gen. W. H. Bixby, then colonel, Corps of Engineers, division engineer, western 
division, in House Document No. 1120, page 55, in May, 1903 declared: 

“I consider that the work already done in the Missouri River has been as successful 
per dollar of expenditure as any similar work in Europe and has proved the possi¬ 
bility and practicability of further extension to 10 or 12 feet depth below Sioux City, 
and that the probable development of commerce to, over, and away from this river, 
and the probable development of land and other property values in this river basin 
resulting from a future 10 or 12 foot navigation, will be sufficient to handsomely repay 
to the United States and to all individual States affected thereby its entire cost in 
so few years that the actual construction work of the 12-foot project should be started 
immediately.” 

On this question it may be said that Congress was fully advised on this subject at 
the time it adopted the project, and it was only after a careful investigation into all 
the facts that the project was adopted. No condition has occurred since 1910 which 
could lessen the commercial value of the improvement of inland waterways. In 
fact, on the contrary, every change in conditions has increased the necessity for the 
development of this great method of transportation. Prior to 1910 the question of the 
commercial possibilities of the river were fully debated in the committees of Congress. 
The Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives was then presided 
over by Theodore Burton, of Ohio, who was skeptical on the subject of the improve¬ 
ment of inland waterways. It was insisted that the commercial interests along the 

issouri River should show their faith in its commercial possibilities by resuming 
ommerce upon that stream and assuming all the risks, los 3 , and expense of naviga^ 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 41 


tion in an unimproved channel. The commercial interests pointed out at that time 
that a river, like any other means of transportation, was no better than its weakest 
point and that it must be improved to a reasonable degree between two terminal 
points before successful use was possible. In other words, they contended that 
improvement must precede use, as the building of a railroad’s tracks must precede 
the running of trains, and that as a business proposition use could not precede im¬ 
provement except on an experimental basis and at a considerable risk and I 033 . 
However, under the views then-expressed by some members of the Rivers and Har¬ 
bors Committee, the commercial interests of Kansas City, Mo., raised by popular 
subscription a capital of $1,250,000 for the establishment of a boat line between Kan¬ 
sas City and St. Louis. This boat line was successfully established and has invested 
more than $500,000 of its capital in building and equipping towboats and barges spe¬ 
cially adapted to river navigation. In doing so it has carried on experimental work 
at its own cost which has been of enormous benefit in view of the future development 
of river commerce and has developed a type of boats which can be used in such work. 
Of this investment of capital the greater part will be lost by the abandonment at this 
time of the improvement of the river. The boats have been continuously operated 
during the open season, notwithstanding the incomplete and adverse channel condi¬ 
tions, and at a profit during stages of good water. 

The conditions upon which the boat line has operated upon a partially improved 
river have been of the most trying character, and its success under these conditions has 
been remarkable. It could only load its barges to a draft corresponding with the 
stage of the water at the shallowest crossing between Kansas City and St. Louis, but 
as the improvement of the river has progressed the boat line has been able to handle 
more freight with less risk and loss and less delay. Both risk and delay are important 
elements in any system of transportation, and it is to eliminate this that the improve¬ 
ment of the Missouri River is needed. In the early days of the river when no improve¬ 
ment was possible and no other means of transportation was at hand, the risk and 
delay which had to be met was so great as to be prohibitive under modern conditions. 
In face of these difficulties of navigation on a partially improved stream, the boat line 
has had offered to it and has carried a rapidly increasing tonnage, at times taxing its 
maximum capacity. Its rates have been uniformly 10 per cent less than rail rates. It 
has constructed modern terminals at East St. Louis and a public municipal terminal 
at Kansas City. Both are equipped with modern freight-handling devices. Both of 
these terminals have adequate rail switching connections. Progress has been made 
in the convenience and promptness of interchanging freight w T ith connecting carriers, 
rail and water, under joint traffic arrangements. The character of the freight handled 
has changed materially since the establishment of the boat line. The growth has been 
in high-class freight, including dry goods, pianos, canned goods, sugar, copper, gro¬ 
ceries, glassware, furniture, wire nails, implements, vehicles, automobiles, flour, 
sirups, alfalfa products, hardware, toys, drugs, and chemicals. During each season 
there has been a notable increase in the amount of feed and dour manufactured from 
the agricultural products of the Missouri Valley carried downstream toward the sea¬ 
boards. In 1913, the year which is used as the basis for the adverse report of the 
district officer, the amount of feed and dour alone was only 334 tons. In 1914 the 
amount was 4,374 tons, and for the drst six months of 1915 the amount has exceeded 
10,000 tons. 

The Missouri River is destined to be one of the greatest carriers of freight of the 
country, if not of the world. An estimate of future commerce based upon the operation 
of a single boat line with less than one-fourth its operating capacity developed, upon 
a river which is less than 25 per cent improved, is totally inadequate. The true esti¬ 
mate is based upon the growth of marketable products in the territory which can use 
any portion of the improved river as a route to the seaboard. This growth in market¬ 
able products has far exceeded the growth of rail facilities in this territory, in periods 
of traffic congestion. 

Fifth. The report of the district officer condemns the improvement of the Missouri 
River on the ground that the present and reasonably prospective commerce is not 
sufficient to warrant the expenditure necessary for the continuance and maintenance 
of the improvement (his individual opinion). This policy, if adopted by your board, 
would mean the abandonment of all attempts to improve inland or nontide waterways. 
It is a sweeping condemnation of the entire policy of river improvement. It affects 
every river project in the United States, for on not a single river above tidewater has 
general commerce increased so rapidly or so satisfactorily in the last five years as it 
has on the Missouri River. If your board approves the report of the district officer, 
it means a reversal of the entire policy of Congress for the improvement of all of the 
natural channels of communication of the country, and in this view the commercial 


42 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


interests and the Representatives in Congress interested in river improvement unite 
in this protest. 

We offer attached hereto and made part hereof, in exhibit form, tabulation showing 
the tonnage moving via rail from Kansas City alone during the periods specified 
which would be tributary to transportation via the Missouri River and connecting 
inland waterways as the best evidence of the commerce possibilities of water-borne 
traffic upon an improved river such as the present Missouri River project contemplates. 
These data relate only to outbound tonnage from Kansas City. Similar information 
will later be presented covering movement from the other Missouri River markets of 
St. Joseph, Atchison, Leavenworth, Omaha, and Council Bluffs. 

With the vast tonnage moving west through the gateways of Kansas City, St. Joseph, 
Leavenworth, Atchison, Omaha, and Council Bluffs, aggregating in the year 1908, as 
to the traffic originating in the territory east of the Mississippi River and north of the 
Ohio and Potomac Rivers, destined to and through the Missouri River cities south of 
Omaha and the territory south thereof, except Texas, and west to the Rocky Moun¬ 
tains, an annual movement of 5,000,000 tons, as testified to at page 492 of the proceed¬ 
ings of the hearing concerning Missouri River improvement conducted by the Rivers 
and Harbors Committee of the House of Representatives, February 5, 1910, and which 
has measurably increased in volume since, it is reasonable and safe to assume that 
the navigation companies with boats and barges departing regularly and daily and 
operating safely on an adequate channel, with deliveries between Kansas City and 
St. Louis of 48 hours downstream and 100 hours upstream, will secure their full share 
of such westbound freight traffic. With equal force the assumption applies to freight 
traffic originating on and west of the Missouri River moving eastbound. 

Sixth. The question of inland waterway transportation in the United States has 
become a vital issue, since the adoption of the Missouri River project, by the com¬ 
pletion of the Panama Canal. If Congress in its wisdom decided that the improve¬ 
ment of the Missouri River was necessary in 1910, it is more imperatively needed in 
1915, unless it is intended by Congress to place the entire Mississippi Valley under an 
insurmountable commercial handicap. The ocean rates from the Atlantic seaboard 
to’the Pacific coast since the opening of the canal have been radically reduced. 

The transcontinental rates of the railroads have been reduced to only partially meet 
this competition. The reduced rail rates remain in various instances as much as 200 
per cent of the water rates on the same commodities. The water-rate reductions have 
already seriously affected the present status of interior manufacturers competing with 
those situated upon the Atlantic seaboard, and threaten the decadence, if not ul imate 
destruction, of the trade of the Mississippi Valley with the Pacific coast and upon 
Pacific coast products. This competition extends actively at least as far inland as 
the Allegheny Mountains on the Atlantic seaboard and the Sierra Nevadas on 
the Pacific seaboard. The great interior portion cf the country, from the Canadian 
border south, removed from the zone of canal influence, must hear either actual or 
relatively higher railroad rates as a direct result of the opening of the canal, which 
was constructed at the expense of the entire Nation. The only" adequate relief from 
this situation is the development of the natural channels of communication between 
the seaboard and the interior of the Mississippi Valley comprising the great system of 
inland waterways. Neither rates made by the railroads nor within the power of the 
Interstate Commerce Commission to prescribe will suffice. 

With the improvement of the inland waterways the great producing area of the 
Mississippi Valley from the Allegheny Mountains to the Rockies can be given the 
advantage of direct transportation and through water rates, thus extending the proper 
share of the advantage of the building of the Panama Canal. Without such through 
water rates the opening of the canal will be a crushing blow to the manufacturing and 
producing area of the entire central portion of the country and all manufacturers seek¬ 
ing Pacific coast and foreign markets will be compelled to remove to the Atlantic sea¬ 
board or Gulf coast territory. There can no longer be any doubt about the situation 
to which we refer. During the calendar year 1913, the year immediately prior to the 
opening of the canal, the total water tonnage of those commodities covered by the 
transcontinental railroads’ recent Fourth Section, Application Nos. 205 et al., to the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, for further relief from the long and short haul 
clause of the act to regulate commerce, was 421,359 tons. The total rail tonnage 
from territory north of the Ohio and Potomac Rivers and east of Pittsburgh and Buffalo 
of the same commodities, was 537,609 tons. The tonnage referred to represent those 
articles most susceptible in trade to the freight rate and covered about one-half of the 
total tonnage. 

The ships already in service prior to the opening of the canal had a carrying capacity 
of 1,239,200 tons, so that without the addition of a single ship the vessels in service 
could more than take care of the entire tonnage of these commodities from that ter¬ 
ritory east of Pittsburgh and Buffalo and have additional carrying room for 267,476 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 43 


tons. A great many additional ships have gone into service and uniform dates of 
sailing established at the time these applications were presented to the commission 
in October, 1914. 

During September, 1914, 78,000 tons of coast-to-coast freight moved by the canal,, 
thus forecasting an annual tonnage upon the basis of that month alone of 936,000 tons, 
or an increase of more than 100 per cent in the water-borne domestic tonnage of the 
preceding vear (1913), itself only 50 per cent greater than the tonnage of the calendar 
year 1910. * 

It is a matter of record that for the years 1912 and 1913, respectively, a little less 
than one-twelfth of the total tonnage handled by the old Panama Railroad route across 
the Isthmus moved in the month of September each year. 

Shortly after the unparalleled low rates for water sendee from Atlantic to Pacific 
ports were inaugurated just following the opening of the canal, the high ocean rates 
upon export traffic consequent upon the European war had attracted a large number 
of the coastwise vessels away from that trade. What further reduction may follow 
their return to domestic shipping via the canal can not now be forecasted, but the 
brief experience of the scramble for tonnage between the competing water carriers 
just following the canal’s opening furnishes safe criteria upon which to predict that 
the beginning has just been made toward lower rate level in the new era in trans¬ 
continental transportation upon which this country has just entered. 

The great interior section of the country, that has a tremendous supply of raw 
material and splendid facilities for manufacturers, will be reduced to the production 
and shipment of raw material only, which will rapidly strip the country of its natural 
wealth. This is the direct result of the policy which will follow the approval of the 
report of the district officer, Lieut. Col. Deakyne. 

In pursuance of the request hereinbefore made for opportunity to further d'seuss 
the situation produced by the report of Col. Deakyne, we respectfully request the 
privilege of offering further data and facts in proof and support of our position and trust 
that it may please the convenience of your board to set this suggestion down for its 
formal hearing on a date early in October. 

Respectfully submitted. 


For Missouri: 

For Arkansas: 

W. T. Bland, Chairman. 

Carl J. Baer. 

W. R. Painter. 

Harry H. Edwards. 

James E. Gatewood. 

For Oklahoma: 

For Illinois: 

A. C. Trumbo. 

II. G. Moore. 

Joe McCusker. 

Robert W. Thompson. 

For Iowa: 

For Nebraska: 

W. E. Holmes. 

JonN L. McCague. 

Irving C. Norwood. 

John W. Gamble. 

For Kansas: 

For Minnesota: 

E. C. Little. 

J. W. Cooper. 

W. A. Austin. 


EXHIBIT A. 

Statement of actual carload shipments from Kansas City via rail of commodities specified r 
during period May to December , 1914, inclusive , having destination in St. Louis , 
Mississippi River,' Illinois, Wisconsin, Minneapolis , St. Paul, Lake Superior ports, 
( hicago , Milwaukee, Middle Slates, seaboard, Mississippi Valley, southeast, Atlantic 
and Gulf ports for export. 


Month. 

: AVheat. 

Corn. 

Flour. 

Meal, 
bran, 1 
and 
chop. | 

Fresh 
meat, j 

Pack¬ 

ing 

house i 
prod- 1 
nets, 
boxed 1 
loose. 

Lard", 

tallow, 

grease, 

and 

oil. 

\fnv . 

2,516 

33 

302 

190 

1,698 

435 

168 


315 

104 

336 

267 1 

1,599 

439 | 

161 


4.324 

151 

384 

352 

1,824 

487 | 

124 

J U1 J. 

! 6 087 

107 

740 

436 

2,121 

423 \ 

110 

fiAntpm hftr .. 

7i 163 

70 

956 

592 

2,624 

422 [ 

104 


5,296 

102 

1,036 

544 

3,028 

557 

147 

"M m/A.m her .. 

6,289 

150 

1,145 

698 

| 2,607 

727 

177 

December. 

4,047 

334 

879 

422 

I 2,105 

645 

168 

Total.I 

36,037 

1,051 

5,778 

3,501 

17,606 

4,115 

1,159 


































44 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 


Statement of actual carload shipments from Kansas City via rail of commodities specified, 
during period May to December, 1914-, inclusive, having destination in St. Louis, 
Mississippi River, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Lake Superior ports, 
Chicago, Milwaukee, Middle States, seaboard, Mississippi Valley, southeast, Atlantic 
and Gulf ports for export —Continued. 


Month. 

Fertili¬ 

zer, 

bones, 

horns, 

and 

hoofs. 

Hides 

and 

hair. 

Seeds 

and 

castor 

beans. 

Hay 

and 

broom 

corn. 

Lead, 

spelter, 

bullion, 

and 

acid. 

Miscel¬ 

laneous. 

Total. 

May. 

20 

118 

28 

131 

64 

365 

6,068 
4,019 
8,576 
11,103 
12,799 

June. 

19 

89 

15 

201 

86 

388 

July. 

31 

63 

4 

377 

57 

418 

August. 

50 

100 

15 

424 

43 

447 

September. 

29 

93 

5 

376 

50 

315 

October. 

42 

141 

8 

247 

46 

360 

ll’554 
12,657 

November. 

52 

167 

20 

237 

71 

317 

December. 

39 

175 

34 

258 

74 

297 

9; 477 


Total. 

282 

946 

129 

2,251 

491 

2,907 

76,253 



The above totals reduced to tonnage predicated upon average carload weights as 
indicated produce following (authority for average weights, reports of I. C. C. in 
I. & S. Docket 555, 35 I. C. 0. 497-681): 


Commodity. 

Average' 

carload 

weight 

(tons). 

Tons. 

Commodity. 

Average 

carload 

weight 

(tons). 

Tons. 

Wheat. 

36 

1,297,332 
35,0.9 
115,560 
66,519 
211,272 

Hides and hair.. 

17 

16,082 
1,935 
24, 761 
12,766 
75,582 

1,951,329 

Corn. 

33.33 

Seeds, etc_ __ 

15 

Flour. 

20 

Hay, etc... 

11 

Meal, etc. 

19 

Lead, etc. 

26 

26 

Fresh meat. 

12 

Miscellaneous.... 

Packing house products, etc.. 
'Hard, etc. 

17 

17 

69; 995 
19, 702 

Total. 


Fertilizer, etc. 

17 

4; 794 




Note.— This list includes only selected commodities confined to tonnage moving from Kansas City 
proper. There is a vast tonnage from other Missouri River points, St. Joseph, Atchison, Leavenworth, 
Omaha, South Omaha, Council Bluffs, and interior territory west of the Missouri River, in the same line 
to transit and to same destination territory of like commodities, which would be tributary to Missouri 
River transportation. 

Missouri River.—Before the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors of United States.—Improvement of Missouri 
River.—Statement and brief for the commercial interests of Missouri River Valley in opposition to report of Lieut. Col. 
Herbert Deakyne.—Hearing, Kansas City, October 19,1915.—Prepared under the direction of the Commercial Club 
of Kansas City by Hon. Wm. P. Borland, Representative in Congress, Fifth District of Missouri, assisted by the fol¬ 
lowing experts: E. M. Clendening, general secretary, the Commercial Club; R. D. Sangster, transportation commis¬ 
sioner, the Commercial Club; Geo. H. Forsee, indus rial commissioner, the Commercial Club; W. R. Rowe, assistant to 
the industrial commissioner, the Commercial Club; A. W. Mackie, secretary Kansas City-Missouri River Navigation 
Co.; Jerome Thralls, secretary-cashier Federal Reserve Bank at Kansas City, Mo. 

IMPROVEMENT OF MISSOURI RIVER—STATEMENT AND BRIEF FOR THE COMMERCIAL 
INTERESTS OF MISSOURI RIVER VALLEY IN OPPOSITION TO REPORT OF LIEUT. COL. 
HERBERT DEAKYNE. 

(Before the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors of United States.) 

RECENT HISTORY OF MOVEMENT TO PERMANENTLY IMPROVE MISSOURI RIVER. 

In order to understand the present condition of traffic on the Missouri River it will 
be well to take a brief glance at the recent history of the movement to restore river 
navigation. It will appear front this that in the last few years remarkable progress 
has been made which, so far from indicating a failure of river navigation from a commer¬ 
cial standpoint, is, on the contrary, the best guarantee of ultimate success, and the 




















































MAP SHOWING INLAND WATERWAYS, KANSAS CITY TO THE SEA. 

This map shows the advantage of connecting water lines, each one of which adds to the commercial value of the others. For instance, the route by the Chicago 
Drainage Canal and the Illinois River, which is now coming into use, will make a through water route from the Atlantic seaboard to Kansas City. 

















co 

W 

H 

CO 

Q 
W 
Eh 
*—i 
£ 
P 

pH 

o 

QQ 

W 


P 

o 

a 

a 

o 

o 

o 

£ 

HH 

P 

< 

pq 

P 

Ph 

O 

£ 

o 

h-1 

Eh 

o 

D 

P 

O 


Ph 

O 

GO 

fy* 
<— 

w 

£ 

K 

O 

C 

£ 


■ O 

K 

co 




3 

o 

£ 

o 

>> 

•pH 

O 

co 

c3 

CO 

a 

c3 

W 

a 

o 

U< 

<*-« 

Ut 

a? 

> . 

pi a> 

c3 

o g 

CO ^ 

.so c3 

a» 

O-a 

fcl 

is 

‘P *“• 

-g 

*Zt so 
O <?3 
<U 0> 

.fc3 © 

^ > 

si 

a> 

x! 23 
<© 


o ^ 

^ o 

s a 

£ a 


c3 


O 
o 

<© 
CO 
O) 
>>43 

<D 

3=3 

03 


> 


a 

a> 

-a 


fcJD 

r* 

N 

•^H 

& 

O 

43 

CO 

























MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 45 


strongest argument in favor of the commercial importance of the river to this entire 
territory. 

The Missouri River Commission was abolished in 1902. This commission had done 
some permanent work on a stretch of the river between Murray Bend and Gasconade, 
which had demonstrated the soundness of its engineering plans for securing a perma¬ 
nent channel in the Missouri River, but much of its work, and the greater part of its 
appropriations, were expended in isolated localities, under special provisions in the 
appropriation bills of Congress. The plan of expending money in isolated spote, 
without regard to a general engineering plan, did not result in any permanent improve¬ 
ment of the stream, and was probably contrary to the judgment of the engineers of 
the Missouri River Commission; but it was required in express terms by the acts of 
Congress making the appropriations. Much of this class of work was wholly lost in 
a few years, by changes in the banks of the stream. This accounts for the comparative¬ 
ly large expenditure of money under the commission, very little of which should be 
charged to the account of the permanent improvement of the river, but most of which 
should be charged to a mistaken policy of Congress. 

By the river and harbor act of March 2, 1907, authority was given for a prelimi¬ 
nary examination and survey of the Missouri River, from its mouth to Kansas City, 
and from Kansas C'ity to Sioux City, Iowa. This was the beginning of a different 
policy, contemplating the improvement of a sufficient reach of the river at one time, 
and in a permanent manner, under a general engineering plan, to secure a general 
restoration of commerce upon that reach. 

At this time, Capt. Edward H. Schulz was district officer at Kansas City, and Col. 
James B. Quinn was in charge at Sioux City. 

On June 4, 1907, Col. Quinn submitted to the Chief of Engineers his report, and 
on April 30, 1908, Capt. Edward II. Schulz submitted his report. These reports were 
referred in the regular way to the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors, and on 
June 10, 1907, that board, by Col. D. W. Lockwood, its senior member, submitted its 
report, recommending the survey. 

The report of Capt. Schulz was a very thorough and exhaustive statement of the 
feasibility, from an engineering standpoint, of improving the Missouri River from the 
mouth to Kansas City, and contains a full discussion of the commercial possibilities 
of such improvement, with statistics of crop production, population, manufacturing 
interests, and existing railroad facilities of that territory. All of this information was 
based upon statistics of the year 1907. 

A tremendous growth in "all of these lines has occurred in the years intervening 
between 1907 and 1915, as will appear from tables inserted in this brief. 

Capt. Schulz recommended in the strongest terms the permanent and systematic 
improvement of the river, and pointed out the growing necessity for its use, as indi¬ 
cated by the commercial dvelopment of the Missouri Valley. 

This recommendation was concurred in by Col. W. H. Bixby, then division engineer 
western division, afterwards Chief of Engineers. 

Report of Col. W. II. Bixby , Division Engineer , Western Division, May 19, 1908. 

|H. Doc. No. 1120, p. 55, COth Cong., 2d sess.^ 

“I consider that the work already done on the Missouri River has been as suc¬ 
cessful per dollar of expenditure as any similar work in Europe, and has proved 
the possibility and practicability of further extension to 10 or 12 feet depth below 
Sioux City, and that the probable development of commerce to, over, and away 
from this river and the probable development of land and other property values in 
this river basin resulting from a future 10 to 12 foot navigation will be sufficient to 
handsomely repay to the United States and to all individual States affected thereby 
its entire cost in so few years that the actual construction work of the 12-foot project 
should be started immediately. 

This statement is made in transmitting the report of Capt. Schulz to the Chief of 
Engineers. The report was also concurred in by the Board of Engineers for Rivers 
and Harbors. 


lExtraet from the report of Col. D. W. Lockwood, senior member of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and 
Harbors upon the report of Capt. Schulz, H. Doc No. 1120, p. 59, 60th Cong., 2d sess.] 


“In regard to the commerce of this river, the following statement contained in the 
report of the commission for 1902 is believed to be applicable at the present time: 

“ ‘In its present condition it has very little commerce, for the reason that the 
difficulty of navigation will not justify the running of boats, and insurance can not 


46 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


be obtained except at exorbitant rates. No growth of commerce could be expected 
until the river is opened to the mouth to give it an outlet. If the amount of its 
existing commerce is to be used as a measure of its worthiness for improvement, it 
might as well, as has been facetiously proposed, be wiped off the map of internal 
improvements. If its capacity for improvement and the possibilities of its use as 
a highway of cheap transportation for a large section of country and a numerous 
population be considered, its worthiness takes high rank.’ ” 

The recommendation of the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors was con¬ 
curred in by Gen. W. L. Marshall, then Chief of Engineers, and was submitted to 
Congress by Hon. Luke E. Wright, Secretary of War. The survey had been ordered 
by Gen. A. Mackenzie, Chief of Engineers, who preceded Gen. Marshall. 

When House Document No. 1120 reached the Committee on Rivers and Harbors 
of the House of Representatives, that body was presided over by Hon. Theodore 
Burton, of Ohio. The commercial interests of the Missouri Valley appealed to the 
Sixtieth Congress for the adoption of the Missouri River project, but they were met 
by the statement that there was no general commerce on the Missouri River which 
would justify the improvement. The reason for the lack of active commerce on the 
Missouri River had been fully pointed out in Capt. Schulz's report. It had been 
shown that the river traffic had been destroyed during the years when railroads were 
built in large numbers into the western country, far in advance of the commercial 
needs of the country. These railroads, for more than 20 years, had engaged in a 
fierce competition for business during a period when the traffic available was not 
sufficient to support all of the lines. The result was a general system of secret rebates 
and rate cutting which crippled the railroads and exhausted much of their capital, 
and made anything like the maintenance of river traffic impossible. This condition 
had changed very rapidly with the strict enforcement of the Interstate Commerce Law 
and the abolishment of secret rebates and rate cutting, and also with the tremendous 
growth of traffic in the Missouri Valley. The railroads had reached a point where 
rates were more stable and where the growing traffic was taxing the capacity of all 
of the roads. 

During the period, however, of railroad competition, the river had fallen into 
complete disuse, commerce on it had practically ceased, and could not be restored, 
except upon an improved channel extending over a sufficient reach of the river, as, 
for instance, from Kansas City to St. Louis, as would make a haul of sufficient length 
to justify the loading and unloading of boats. 

In their request upon Congress to provide a permanent channel on the Missouri 
River for the restoration of commerce, the commercial interests of the West took 
the position that the improvement of the river must precede the restoration of com¬ 
merce, and it was only to a very limited extent that commerce could be restored upon 
an unimproved river. An attempt to do so would be experimental, and be carried on 
under many disadvantages, which would prevent its being a profitable enterprise. 
They were assured, however, that if commerce was restored upon the Missouri River 
upon a basis which promised success, Congress would adopt the project, and complete 
it by sufficient appropriations within a reasonable time. In other words, they were 
asked to show their own faith in the value of the Missouri River by risking their own 
capital in the development of water traffic. In accordance with this understanding 
with the Committee on Rivers and Harbors, the commercial interests of the Missouri 
Valley, led by the business men of Kansas City, organized a boat line, which was in¬ 
corporated September 7, 1909, under the laws of the State of Missouri. The form of 
the incorporation was such as to secure and retain the control of the line in the hands 
of the merchants and shippers of Kansas City. Preferred stock in this boat line was 
subscribed by 4,220 Kansas City firms and individuals, to the total amount of $1,220,000. 
The subscription books were closed March 31, 1910, and the capital stock of the com¬ 
pany was increased to $1,202,000. More than a million dollars of this amount has been 
collected in cash. In the Sixty-first Congress the chairman of the Rivers and Har- 
bois Committee was Hon. D. S. Alexander of New York. Chairman Alexander took 
a deep interest in the Missouri River project and made a personal investigation of it. 
He came to Kansas City in September, 1909, and made a trip down the river from 
Kansas City to the mouth, as a result of which he became thoroughly convinced 
not only of the engineering possibilities of the river but of its tremendous com¬ 
mercial importance. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 47 


Statement of Hon. D. S. Alexander , chairman of House Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

H. Doc. No. 1287, p. 21, 61st Cong., 3d sess.j 

“Your committee, therefore, are of the opinion that, measured by its capacity for 
improvement, and the possibility of its use as a highway for an increasing commerce, 
and considering the advantages and accommodation it would prove to a rapidly 
growing population, the systematic improvement of this river, in the manner proposed, 
is most worthy of favorable consideration.” 

On June 25, 1910, in the river and harbor bill, prepared by Chairman Alexander, 
the first appropriation was made for the permanent improvement of the Missouri 
River. The amount was $1,000,000. When the bill reached the Senate a proviso 
was inserted by Mr. Burton, of Ohio, who had then become Senator, in the following 
language: 

“ Provided , That the Secretary of War shall appoint a board of three officers, to fur¬ 
ther consider and report upon the most economical and desirable plan of securing 
such channel, in which report consideration will be given to the subject of coopera¬ 
tion on the part of local interests in the work of said improvement: Provided further , 
That the report hereby authorized shall be submitted to Congress on or before the 
opening of its next regular session.” 

The purpose of this proviso was to secure a further special examination of the Mis¬ 
souri River project by three Army engineers other than those who had already re¬ 
ported upon it. The report of Capt. Schulz, even though approved in all of its sub¬ 
stantial features by all of the regular channels of the War Department, was to be re¬ 
examined by a special board to make sure that Congress was not making a mistake 
in adopting the project. This was a rather unusual proceeding, but probably justi¬ 
fied by the magnitude and importance of the undertaking, and indicated that it was 
the desire of Congress to act only after the fullest investigation and the most complete 
information, and then to adopt the project, if at all, with the deliberate and serious 
intention of its successful completion. 

The board of engineers thus appointed consisted of Col. F. V. Abbot, Col. C. McD. 
Townsend, and Maj. Charles Keller. This board came to Kansas City on November 
14, 1910, and held public hearings after having made a personal examination from an 
engineering standpoint of the river and, presumably, a careful analysis of Capt. 
Schulz’s plan of improvement. The report of the board was submitted November 
29, 1910, and is found in House Document No. 1287, Sixty-first Congress, third session. 
It is a complete discussion of the possibilities of the improvement of the Missouri 
River, with a comparison of the plans of German and French engineers in the im¬ 
provement of European rivers. It discounts the possibility of local cooperation, 
for the reason that such cooperation would probably result in isolated and piecemeal 
improvement, which would destroy the value of the engineering plan as a whole. 
It approves, in every important particular, the plan of Capt. Schulz and emphasizes 
the absolute necessity of continuous and systematic work. 

The project recommended is for the improvement of the river from Kansas City to 
the mouth, at a total cost of $20,000,000, to be completed in 10 years, with a further 
allowance of $500,000 a year for maintenance and $60,000 a year for snagging. This 
report was submitted to Gen. W. H. Bixby, then Chief of Engineers of the United 
States Army, who had been for many years personally familiar with the Missouri 
River and who had at one time been in charge of the work upon it under the Missouri 
River Commission. Gen. Bixby strongly recommended the adoption of the report 
in the following language: 

“I concur with the special board and the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Har¬ 
bors in the opinion that the plan proposed, subject to modification as work progresses, 
is the most economical and desirable one for securing a permanent 6-foot channel in 
the Missouri River from Kansas City to the mouth, and I recommend its adoption at 
the estimated cost of $20,000,000, plus the cost of maintenance, ultimately rear-hing 
$500,000 annually, with an additional cost for snagging, not exceeding $60,000 
annually. I further recommend that the appropriations be in amounts not less 
less than $2,000,000 a year for original work, $60,000 annually for snagging, and such 
amounts, increasing to $500,000 annually, as the progress of the work requires for 
proper maintenance. I concur with the board that the levee construction should be 
left to the riparian owner, and that, as a general rule, other cooperation will be imprac¬ 
ticable; but I consider that along city fronts, or at other special localities where large 
interests are involved, cooperation in the way of bank protection may properly be 
required.” 


48 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


The report of the special board had been before the Board of Engineers for Rivers 
and Harbors and had been approved by that board on January 4, 1910, by Col. Wm. T. 
Rossell, senior member of the board. 

This report reached Congress too late to be incorporated in the regular river and 
harbor bill of that session, but on February 27, 1911, an authorization for $600,000 to 
continue the work was made by Congress. 

The project for the improvement of the Missouri River, after this ample foundation 
had been laid, was finally adopted by Congress in the river and harbor act of July 25, 

1912, in the following language: 

‘‘Improving Missouri River, with a view to securing a permanent six-foot channel 
between Kansas City and the mouth of the river, in accordance with report submitted 
in House Document numbered twelve hundred and eighty-seven, Sixty-first Con¬ 
gress, third session, and with a view to the completion of such improvement within 
a period of ten years, $800,000.” 

The reason why only $800,000 was allotted that year was due to the fact that more 
than half of the season for construction work had passed before the bill became a law, 
and it was assumed that the full amount would be supplied in the following session 
of Congress. This proved to be the case, and the river and harbor act of March 4, 

1913, contained an appropriation of $2,000,000 without any qualifications or provisos. 

This brings the history of the congressional legislation and appropriations down to 

the point of the beginning of the season of 1913. It is upon the season of 1913 that 
Col. Deakyne bases his estimate of commerce on the Missouri River, and it is impor¬ 
tant to bear in mind the opportunities for improvement and the extent to which they 
had progressed when the season of 1913 opened in order to understand the value of 
the comparison contained in Col. Deakyne’s report. 

Meanwhile, the boat line had been extremely busy, and had entered upon its task 
in the most careful and conservative way. The organizers realized the necessity for 
having sufficient capital to insure the psrmanency of their efforts, recognizing that it 
would be necessary to operate under adverse conditions, pending improvement of the 
channel, and also recognizing the necessity for experimentation to secure the proper 
types of boats and barges for the Missouri River, and further, that it would be costly to 
revive navigation upon a stream which had, for so many years remained in disuse. 
There were many problems to be solved, in order to successfully restore navigation. 
The disuse of the river had resulted in the scattering of pilots, river men, and dock 
laborers into other lines of business. The landings and terminals which were used 
in the early days of navigation had been appropriated in many cases by railroads. 
The boats which had formerly been in use, known as the “Old Texas-deck” steamers, 
were utterly unsuited to modern conditions. These boats carried all of their load on 
deck, and must be loaded and unloaded by hand, which necessitated the presence of 
a shifting class of dock hands, at every unloading point. Under modern conditions 
this method of transacting business was clearly impossible, and the old boats were of 
no value whatever, as their operation was more expensive than profitable. 

In a similar manner, there had been no correlation or connection between the rail¬ 
roads and the river, and this must be established in order that shippers from interior 
points could transfer their cargoes to the river or vice versa. It was necessary not 
only to devise a system of boats or barges which could be operated upon the river, but 
these barges must be of such a character that their loads could be readily transferred 
to and from railroad cars, switching facilities and connections must be established, 
fireproof warehouses must be built to protect the goods of shippers at landing points, 
and wharves must be constructed with modern unloading machinery, to do away with 
the excessive cost of hand labor, as well as to provide against the impossibility of 
securing an adequate supply of such labor. 

The solution of these problems was vital to the restoration of inland commerce on 
all the rivers of the United States, but the work of pioneering along this line fell to 
the boat line company organized at Kansas City, because it was pressing forward to 
restore commerce on the Missouri River in a modern, pormanent, and profitable way. 
It is manifest that, if such a boat line had not been organized all the improvement of 
the Missouri River, or any other stream, by the Federal Government would not have 
resulted in the restoration of commerce, because the Federal Government was not 
engaged m solving the incidental problems which arose from the change in modern 
conditions. The work of solving these problems successfully was therefore under¬ 
taken by the boat line company. 

Immediately upon the completion of the organization, the navigation company 
employed an engineer and began systematic research and study of floating equipment 
and operating conditions on inland waters, with a view to securing the type of equip¬ 
ment best suited to the Missouri River. One steamer (the Chester ), a Texas-deck boat 


fO/VM/LES Peft ftoo/iQPsr/teoAi. 


i 


2 . 6 oo 
2 too 
2 Zoo 
Zooo 
/too 
/600 
/too 
/200 
/OOO 

'{g 
I s 


8> 


* 


S' 

4 

3 

/ 

O 


/9. A/I . SCQrr U/rH row. 

M/les/hquh /tmd roA/At/ias/z/oo/i //ps r/1 e /?m 


tfi/r6/)san,Aio. /j/m a by. co . 

irfttem cnr ftjc. 











































































L— —— —- — «. 

1 

J 

\<S£ S/°6 


r/jez/M. «• 

3./ /fy/ YfS. 




L.- 

l 



. - 







_ 

1 - 

1 









1 

I Rer* | fttP//# I 

/ sr /w* ! • 

1 ' , 2 1 

1 

Tier// j £Aro£/?w/{ | 

j* y I 4* 

1 

ffcr/ye 

s« 

/isra 

*< 

G o. e | 

7 * ! 

£A'0£A/M | 

»* i 


e nomris nktersco., Washington, l 



^Ra/sas Cit y Missouri Titus ft May.C o. 


V/ALTF/l S.DKFFj . Pres. 


COMP/lfo ay 



House Ooc. No.^ 63 ; 64th Cong., 1st Sess. 














































































steamer A SCO rr. 


m ; e 


AC teal 

_/ft_//As_ load/MG 
« •• /v/i y/o/} r/o/v rxov&iE 

_ MAJ/d/vepY 

!L _ °' L 

■_ PftPp/p p/ 7 ^* r. 

DEL AYED &Y z/AftK MESS f SroR M/ftOG . 

_ Avn/yL/G/yr w 

// 

/0 

<? pn- n‘ 
8 

7 

6 f.te. 18 ‘ 

5 

4- 

3/r.to. 'S' 

z 

/ 

_ M0Q7/_ _ n' 

// 

/O 

1 *-*- r 

8 

6 a.*. 6 ' 

s 
ft 

3 a.* M 

Z 

/ 

Af/Atf/GUr __ 


0 P££ A T/Az G V/A GRAM. 


MR A CM / 0 


// 


A, J////E 3 0 


AC 


f DAYS 




-/¥ 24 y* 


w da/s 


/7 days 




8 Z>ft/s 


// DAKs 


/ ^ 7r/f> t/fs/rfOtn 

Z)ELTfi 


X<?W2 rR/P / 


ryk/mZ) tk/p Z 

F.PS/lO// GAM ft A <Y> EPS // o// 


ft0 (/P/D TK'P 3 
DELTA * eps/LOAi ftZ PhA 


ftOl/ATDTK/P y 
PAE£#Y/>P GAMMA 


Aol/MOtp/p 3~. 
Delta ft IP pa 


— CfDAYs — 

ftc/wort/p 0. 


> < 


ft) 2/ 


EA/EE A I/O A EPS/LO// 


ftCl/A/DTh 

G ft Aim a 



/ 3 S 

A/ftftC// 


























































































































































































































































































































































































































TEAMER 


/x // 

A. M. sscorr . 


0 P£ RA T/A/g v/a gram. 


AlflACH /O fA h J (Ja/E 3 o 


4, 


Kansas C/ry Missouri Riven A/a v Co. 
WalterS.DicK ey Pres. 


/Jfs. 

/. 



/VAVaL t V!^c//'recr. 


House Doc. No. 4b2> ; 64th Cong , 1st Sess. 





















































































































































































































































































































































































































































T o ys jb o r 


/? or/9 MCE 


Era: 


AfOOps 


kVW 

r///i 


• • • 


A U/ffifi u<3 

~L~ 

£A VJ_OJf Tj_0/Y _ 77 ? OUBLe 

MPCHJUET^Y _ » 

Z3 U V/Cf _*/jV3 o7tS. 

3 £ R J ?'3 /A rn_r_ 

* to am ,j>b Rk Jr ess. 


O 7=>E.P S T / U O £)/RGR R/vj, 


/SAR CH / ^ to '£ZJLL 3g 





/f Z)/?K£ 


^ <r- 


ftourv t>rfi / f> / 

A LA HR EPS,loss 


•9 


-/Z -DH/-E 




/<§ 2W/S 




-// 


/4" 


7{w//prniP 2 -'« 
G/Wf/tffl DBL7H 


Houma tp/P 3 . 

A) LA HR &RD£ffYO/\ 


noi/A&TR j p 4 

Gfi/YlMB DT/T/? c# EPS/LOM 


/? OU//DT/J/P S 
A L A HR £AD£/J]/ Op 


/? OUSTl>TP/P 


6 


EPS/C OH 


~B£tr 


/ 

B L-, 



/ 3 s 7 

MAnc /1 
































































































































































































































































































































































































































/ftftKV/LLC 


T O VS & O/Cfj- 


/?or/?/see • 


0 -pE 7=1/} T/ WO Z>/ ft 6 A H/ft. 

U U //£ 3 0 


Khhsrs Cnr tyisscom fovea M* Co 

WMTEK S.Dic/TE)/. Pres. 


•7 ' w 

{. 


fttQH CH / ^ f 0 




2 <r- 


-/Z Z>ft/~S 




/8 z>p>ys 


ftouoo ro/p 3 . 
ft LP ft ft &/vn SffvOft 


ftOl/A&Tft ' p yf 
6ft MM ft Dp ITS) 6t £PS/10// 


-// DftyJ 


/S Aftrs 


// z>ftys 


> < 


-/oioftys 


/S £>ft X5 


ft OU//D Tft/P 
ft L Pftft /EA'DEft y Oft 


ftOUSCT>TT?/P 6 
EPS/C oft H£Tp 


ZlOi/ME 77 ? I ft y 
BLPhf) JbELTP) * 


ftOUftOTP/P 8. 
EPS/LOtf GftMMfl 


BET ft ftLPHR 



^ /S IT /Q 2/ 2J 2s.zj 7<f 'Vj / ^ vT 7 9 7} 43 fS H y 2 i Z*> 25 2 7 2 <f. 

/ ’ ~7 // user 




EFFICIENCY: ft- 5 


//ft Fft L ft ft CH /T£CT , 


House doc. Mo. 4^63 ; 64th Cone-, »st Sess. 




















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































k\\V 


t 1 _ ficroGi p qw/v/hg Houns. 

_III! 10/91 3 //YG WOO f\ s . 

Houns mg ch/a/£h y -Dfiny 

_- •> Rudder _• • 

—1 .1— WfiVlG 0T/OAT .. 

_•• " 7ZUA/K£n/W6 OIL . 

E/9y//YG op won w/g *r. 


T o tv 73 o /? r A. At. Scott. 


O 7=>£R f) r/Af G D/fiG7WM. 


MARCH 26* ~ 3 HUE 30*' 


HflUifts Ciry Missouri River M/ivCo. 
W.RLTER S.LlC HEY, Vres. 


rjrjfA 


/THASHS C/ry Af/SSOOH/ fi/VER AH V/GRT/O A Co. 


_ ? Dors 

J J // 

♦-*-<- y^ROUWDTP/P 8 

\tD0WATt\ U_ Up . 

GffMMn -j _ yH(PH/6//_r_ 

//_ 
fo 



AooA _ 


1 /D/V /GHr. 


C-om p/e £c> ny : 





AH i/HL fl HCH / TEC r. 


TERS CO.. WASHINGTON, D- C. 


House Ooc. No. ¥ 63 ; 64th Cong., 1st Se 


















































































































































































































































































































































































































































ISA/r/A/C 


Tfir/g/vr 


JoVRi ACWL RVFF/NO. 

" ** L °AD>HG OR R/Zf/T/A/C, TOR TRe/SRr, 

'* " &HL\*y&Z) T/ZROUCH A/R V / GA/tON. 

ill 11 " " " "t 0 ***** 5 ' ******* *JW ***wes. 

■ *** *»*n nM*. 

h boras a/zyg fuel a/Lm 

" “ law oz> for /Z/ozzr , fog 
8^Foz/zZdtF/P 


7~Q/Y%o/?r /9. M- SCorz. 

fiPEft/Q Z' / /V G J)/tf6P/)A1. 


JOL / /** 


T)£ce m-b an 


OR 


STOR M 


eoo/zpfp/p 


(?sz*ysj 


35 MYS/ 


/0 ™Fo/7/zj>Tz?/p 


Ztoo/zzz t~f /p 


/f VATS 


Oa> 

9 Z>AYs 


L-VOA/T-tL*— 


DOHrt Jf/s 

MATA. MTPY0M9/.PAA 


8 J>AYs —>J 


wazt/azc Fop rpr/GAT 
/rr st. zoo/s. 


tip //2? p?ys 
£PS/LOAF 


f PAYS 


OR 


DOW// 

8 PA Ys 


spec /a l 


YPtys 


to/BH/G ftr 


Toptu/pp c/rr 


£A>D£RVOR 

W fUU I \ 


EPS/10/Z 


irA 


Aero 


N 0 &M n 


f A. hi. 


O. *f. 


a.yn. 


I I I I 


P?/n/V/GPF 0 


3/ / 3 nT > 

A o g tis r 


3/ / 0 5 7 9 

S£7>T EM S EZK 


£/3o / s 5 7 

0 tr 0 /3 £R 








































































































































































































































































































































/f'9-. 


TQj*ao#r a /t/. scorr^ 

Zt/rf 6 &/1 A4 - 

jotr /p /■„ z>£C£MT3£a //*■ 


FPPSflS C/ TY /y\ / SSO UFU R/V£A /YaV Co. 
Walter Sj>/cp£y. Pres. 



WAJT/ASC 

For 


mmilllN 


iiiiiiiii 




F. 


iFR 


~/0 ^FotfY&rR/p 


f??o*rs/ 


// 


7to v//z> r*/ p 


ZWF$ 


•>OWy/ 

SD/m 

?eurA 




8 PAYS —ad 


VP 


SPec/AL 


Aya/F/a/G For Fpr/GAT 

/rr sp. tot/ss. 


wp //2>pys — *-\+sp£c*lJ^ 

.- ... 1 


YPAys 


TQsMot/R/? c/ry 


FP6//.M 


FfTA 


EPS/LO-Y 


2f 


3/ / Q F 7 9 

£ E 7* T £ AT B £R 


£/3o ' 3 vT 7 

o er o /3 fr 


ey 3/ / >3 vT 7 

A/0 V £M&FR 


A3 fS YJ /y 2/ 23 ZS Z7 2f 3o / 3 7 y 

£>£ QE fa £ ER 


-►i 


/£ X o o/VD r/i/P (vwcoAfPLeFEb) 


DOhYN 16 J>YJ/G 
_ (Z/YAAAaF/ 


k/fi/r/WG Eop FPE/Gpry- 
pr ar/ysrs c/ty 


VJAIT/A/ G 


Eon 


FR£/o//r 


AvUDYV/GHF 

// 

/0 

9 /,.». 

8 

7 

6 /}. Ar. 
sT 


f 


V? 

l 


/>■ rk , 


NOON 

// 

/o 


f (f. /M. 

8 

7 

(3 a . H\. 


$ 


v3 <?. A*. 

I 


/ 

Af/PN/G/yT 


YPoA/S/LeA Z3Y ■ 



AWA?/. EPCF/TEcr 


House Doc. Ho. ¥63 ; 64th Cong., 1st Sess. 






































































































































































































































































































mp( 

*”’S’ " 

► 

I 


tJTSJTa 


C ^ C/ f\ / ^ M /}/ f /^ ^ ^ y ^ 

H/oorz t-cstzusvS', o/v c I? a n//v g 
RCi/#s 2>£tRy AAV/ GR T OA/ 

ROVUS <• v AlACA/AtAY 

Hovxs „ / />/<? E,t//v/ce* /A'G On 

//Ol/Qs » " roG.STOR/^ A//GHT 


7~OJ/\/E>OAT /? Z> IT /* c E . 

O ~P £RA T / A/G J3//4GXAA i, 

/// *SER V/CE /J / DA YS. 

/<?/*+. 


/Ctt/sAS Cm M/sst 

White.* 



27 2y / 3 5" 

OCTO££/< 


2 S 27 2<f 3/ / 3 S 7 

A/01/£ M 8 £ A 


















































































































































































































































































































































































































?/p (3/Z)4ys) 


2 Roomd t/?/p 
//.DAYS 


ft OR/YO Tft/P — 

/S2)AYs 

Waiting X- OP 7DAYS 


- ft™ R 0 O/YDTX/P _ 

2 .3 Days 

do too J r JyA/t/Og /~0/? r/?£/Gjvr. 

jZTJA tAr* --* 


UPsntfAH /Oeo/s 

Beta 


\+DCWH SM\ 


DO too 
tmks 


DOW/V 


NN* ttLTUN/V 


suro* 


(*ei>Aj 


•VA/r/i 


1 UODD 




<t\l 

55 

§§■ 

SS" 


House Doc Mo. 4 b 3 : 64th Cong 1st Sess 


7~ O ftft E) OAT 


/UD 12 ft) /ft C £ . 


O'PftKAT / ft/G D / /)GKASo \. 


//ft *SBR V/CE /3 / DA YS. 


ft?/?. 


Aaa/sas C/ty Mtssauft / ft /yea Nay. Co 

l/V/U TEA s. Dtckf y . Pres. 


naval A/tM/recr. 


2 _ 


Af/v/Y/wr. 


2 <f / 3 <r 7 

D£C£M£EA 


// '2 


COtfP/LDD jby ^f. irnt~7a9£^/^Etft/ 


ALfJjtfLGMr. 


_L jP J*— 


_>_a ft*- 


7* 


- 3 -£ 


JYAOtf 


10 


_ a_p! 


.DOtv/v /ft days 

Jtfrr* 



















































































































































































































































































































































■V-.— . .. 


























































* 















































P£nC£A/T/?G£ 


] 


III! 






no*M/A6 T/toL , 
iO/?D//fS, OH LOAO/U g . 
*f)CH/AGfir, np/ien Tpov /u/ 
ftftV!6f)TjQAf rftOt/HL£ . 

CO/Pl /Arc r/AtG. 

1/9 y up ro* /y/<sHr, pog *4. 



Dcfr/YsrnetiM f/r/C/fA'cr. 


.. WASHINGTON, D 


ro/VteO/pr fi. Al. Scorr, 

Z)//? G 71JP At £ S//0hr/Are O7>£ft A T/XG £FF/C/£XCK 

* ^ ^ R <§ ^ ^ 



DS 



SFF/C/SXcy 0F S£/?SW. 



7. 3 4 S' 6 7 

T/1/ps #PSr/p£/?M. 


JJPSr/)E/?M £FF/C/£XCr. 


/rmw c/rr x/ssom/ #/*& xxr> C0. 

WMLTEH S.QiCKE/.PreSt . 

/tmsxs c/rr, Af£. 



star jms Jt/Ly wsusr sspr. ucr. x<?r. 


/HMMAL £/Z/^C£Lj, 


COAtP/lSO /if 


/ifam/ tficAjbeP: 


House Ooc. Ho.t/-63 ; 64th Cong., 1st Sess. 





















































































































































































































• • - - .... 



































































SFeorvo QurtATfR 


... 


k\V 


/9c 7-///7C A U/V/V/ /V G r/AfE 
LOW C> //V-fi /)yVO 1//VL0A 0 //V 6 
/V/7 V/Sft T/o Al TROUBIE 
E/V G J U £ c* £,01LER TROUBLE 
CftYUF FOR t/f G HT OR F'OG. 


STEP S1ER H, El, SCOTT, 


OPER P T //V G D/ H 0 Rf) FT, 

PPR/L / & fo JO AYE 30 K 




OfiWSFS c/rv Missouri river nr yigrtio/i Co. 

\Yrltb ffS. Dicker .pres. 

Yrrsrs c /rr , At o. 


House Ooc. Ho .063 ; 64th Cong., 1st Sess. 














































































































































































































































































!*v\ \*\ a >K S’AVv'i IN DSN 

d NN\ o O W Pv 4 >VS\oa 0 \ 

\ \ a ' \ vNi A *>VN' V-A 

.t)^ 9N*^*fc\W V\^ A 
































































;3"avT\%>T 





















— •. >.• - .. 















————■A f-i«- i 























•- .*«<-iinu- . irj If '. , »n i.Kfitiii an- 











































































I 


L- ■ ■ ■ nt"rsrjA,G T/M£ 

■ ■ ■ ■ 1 tO#Q/XG 

MQCH/Aff n y 7 -ftot/tUE 

SffiYfG&T/OM .. „ 

CO»L (AG T/A£ 

IQYaP r»* H/(p//r «*. 


AW 


r //A 


37-£9AL£B. ^JjGcorr 


A#*s/>jC ity AI/jsou*' fa*** AA*. Co- 
W/tLirn S. A/cney. Arcs. 



OP£ftfiT/H(? £>//)(?###' 


T////fD Qi/H /? r/A. 


4 ** e £Zr t "‘ -H*- ^ rA, P 

/3 | £*»e*ro* 2S o*r\ 


SJJ/LV / sr — S£Ar£AfAE!l 30 


4. 




GAMJffA, 0£LTA j £ PS/L o 


A/o/rutHr 



fltDHtGHT 


JHL Y 


i( / 3 £ 7 f (f a /S' O Sf l( t3 tr £7 jp do 

S£ P 7 ~£M &£/% 


CQMPtifO AY ft. - 


AjfY/U mC(t/T£CT_ 


House Doc. No. # & 3 ; 64th Cong-, 1st Sess. 









































































































































































































































































































































m 


i\\V 

v/A 


fft/HA/ //v G Hours 
Lohg/h-g •• 

AAY / GHr/o/v rn ounce 

Af/)CH/\£RY 

COA/L/A/G Hours 

Lh/o gh for h/g H7 ; 7~og or storm 


To (a /3 o /? t fi.Al.SCorr. 


O TEROr/A/G £>/AG 71OM' 


a/raA A^ove m tfe ^ 




/ 3 E 

0CT07i£f\ 


? f 
Are A£7\ 


2? 3o 

/CfiASAS C/rr A?0. ft/ /EE PV/W- Co. 

WALTER S.D/CKEYTres. 

A'’gases C/rr, Mo. 

Comp i/eo/3y A. box, JeAJ>iA—^~ k 


&ath Cong., ist Sess. 


House One. Ho. fS 3 






















































































































































































































7*£A C£ <3£ 


mi 


7UMr*/Ar6 MOoAs 
10*0 /A/<3 Mo i/MS 

pip: |T::::| AT Air/ <s Pt/om o£l My 

MAC H/Ml ft? 

M/o UP riff p/Spr. 




t / 1 3 f F 6 7 

I 

- DOri/P-Sf/llAP - 




DOk/PS TAf A Af FFF/C/FPCF 


S T£7\ M W H e £ L rotv&o/? T '/?£> WMC£ '[ 


D/SXSPams SHOhf/AG OPEQQT /tf<5 £FF /C/£pCF , 


* S 



~E 

F 

J9#4to/ Ac6 

Jj 

PI 


^ x 


& ^ 
K 


* | 



SFF/C/£ #Cr OF S£/?J Off. 
~ / 8 S OfifS. 


10 




So 




70 




0« 

jj 

II 

w 

So 

f ff im Oil yffUffo jaLrrjl-Su 

<■ »* ■-wx> mm {him 

uPnl 

u « 

£ 


»£- 

7° 

So 

7o 

6 o 

So 

4o 

3o 

to 

ro 




.%2 

wV 


_ 


btjWB 

wV 



















BE 




















□ 



i / 

I 

H«- 


S / 7 


uPsrniAP 


EPST/ytpp £FF/c/£Pcr. 



/?/3 


FPA(Si9s c/ry Af/ssovP/ /f/FSP pps CS 

WALTBXS.D/CWPrtS. jyPPSPJ C/Ff M 



fiPML MAY SOA/e 30 if FOOt/Sr S£/>r. I 


-/tyo/i/rs/s 


jjfOA/TPLr £fF/C/£MCr. 


CQHP/iFO /SF 



//Oval P/tc/t/rscr. 


House Doc. No. ^62 ; 6**th Cong., 1st Sess. 




































































































































































































































in 


AW 


ftOAT/V/# ff Fffi/p 5 
lOftp/z/G * - 

M/tr/cpr/oM DEtAr 

Mc#//v&ay " * 

£/?/& op Top /v/G/tr FaS op sro/t/u 


S TEAMED /9D tC/9 /V Ce 


QF£RPT/AYG D/ACfiPM 

Atfmcx 20* - Ji/A/E Jo* 



/ * r C*o/vn rp/p 



#r Xfftv FO//VT 


r 



IM; 

■X 

raj 

HI 

HI 

III 

HI 

HI 

HI 


>^\%>\>>\\VVV\\\\W\VVW«\>K 

W^N\N\\V\V\:VK!V\\VV\WWCCiM 

rM\>\WN\\V^\V\\^VV\\VWI! 

i\\V k \WX>\X\XV\XX\V\VX\\\\\^ 

XXXXWXXXXXNXXXVXVVVVWWCV' 

* 


2 7 


*1' 

yc/ve 


/S /S /? 



l± IS 17 2? «* 

/TAASPS e/ryjf/ssov#/ a/ re* MAY- Co. 


Walter S-D/cA^y p rt . Sk 


'A*/?Ms AS C/r? //#, 

fa ’ 


House Doc. Ho. 4 63 ; 64th Cong., 1st Sess 


















































































































































































































TTT 


wVW 


7U//>rAf/Af 6 boons. 

£ 2>/A/- $ -• 

ATAv / <S fir/o A ZifbAV 

-*#CAs//vfA r ' - 

YP/O UK> fo/i <Y'6//r 


.U/ 

— tf ft 00*0 7~P/A> 
{/$ 0 /?ys ) 


ST£AtfWHE£L ST£ft/U£ft /?Q\ft/P AT CE " 

V/ AGftftAl 0E 0~PE ft ft T/oAr. 


JI/IY / sr - S£*>7: 3 o' 


7 * ft ao*o rn /P f 4o daks) 


S **fi 00 *o rn,r> 


/ 28 x>*rs). 




r/ ,, ^ 

CoMft/**!. Ay 




Mouse Dec. Me. Y63 ; **th Coog., >*t 



































































































































































































































































































































































. 






















■* 




























































Steamer c//ss fer' 

-P/&67U?MS -SHOW//V 6 o P£/j/?r//V<5 EFF/C/E/YC Y 



I n 

LOHC. 

LA 


T 

LOGO/A/6 

A. 


EFF! C/Etfcy OF*SE»SOA/ 



V 


/oo 

9° 

80 

70 

do 

SO 

40 

30 

20 

/O 

0 



CD 


/ i C3 ^ *f ^7 8 ^ 
*_ r/j/AS U*>srf\£fi/i _ a 

t/F&rriE/t/i EFF/ C/E/YC Y. 



AfO/rTHL Y Err/c/£.#cy 


mi 


mm 




actual fuaa/ao r/A/ e. . 

T/Aft LOST FO*\ 10 AO/AO A*D M164D/AG . 
7V/V£ LOST OA #<XOU*r orAJ/92IO»TlOA TAQUQIS.. 

U _«_ " - - /fACM MBA Y rr\Om i£. 

» l fat) UP #T A/GHT t roo A AO srVF/fj _ 


/TF/YSES c/ry Af/SS QVR/ n/\/£H AAV/GATIO*/ CO. 

W«« e S.Dnt'y. /V«. nfiSI)s an ' ~ 0 



House Doc. No. ¥63 ; 6*th Cong., 1st Sess. 
























































































































































































,*>A Mr p a 






































































H 


Actual Runn/ng t/me. 

LOAD/ATG AND UNLOAD/HG. 

uas/lgat/oa/ trouble y geoua/e>//vg / e/ c . 

£A/G /Af E &0/LER TROUBLE 

DRY UR BOB Af/Gur OB ROG. 


STEAMS A CHESTER 

0 P £ A AT/A/S D/AG Ft AM! 


/<?/?> 


SECOND QUARTER 


SfPS/L I st - J(///£3Q fA 


Afs/>A//G//r 



fawnsC it y Missouri R/ver A/aV.Co. 
Walter S D/crexj. Pres* 


House Doc. No. 463 64th Cong., 1st Sees. 




















































































































































































































































































fU-ru/u. P/j^r/a/o r /Al£ _ 

Load/»g r/Au 
MQCH/A/£ R y rn<,i,n i£ 

Aav/g at/or 

L/frop T/a/f mt/Gf/T, Fo» sm 


/ttOA 


3 


P.C.M 7 \. Af. Co. 

CofwitoByz 'n 




ftomDrn/p_ 


3 TEfiMEK C//£S TEK . 


QPP/7PT/NG D/f)GFRA4. 


gAl/ / S/ *0 OCTOBER 3 rc/ 


Ap/VSPs C/tV M/ssour/ P/ vcr M»V.Co. 
WALTER S.DtcKEy- Pre s- 


S^Poi/pvtA/f 




JL/mi 7}01 //vdt7}/f> - 
36, DbY-S. 


Mm/GHT 

// 

/o 

r s m - 

7 

t> f.*. 

s 


7 

6 Q.»t. 

6 ~ 

H- 

v3 , 

2 

/ 

MiD/Y/GHP 


October 


House Doe. Ho. 4 &3 ; Cong.. 1st Sets. 






















































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































QA KANjPtS city. to aouiK 

f the completed river improvement since /HO &>d the location and condition of crossings And ban at the close o-f //ii/'igation I 9 l 5 . 


{jP (3>® C^> ® © ® 



-ite_ 

4 

.^ir_ 

5? 

_ 

£ 

July 

o 

* 

Aucuji _ 


JTPTEMBER 

<0 

0ctqber 

oj 

November 

l 


— f 

flpTi.lL 

C, 

Mry 


JUNl 

1 

JULY 

* 

_6 doust_ 

£ 

September 

cSj 

0tI0BEll 


JJOJEMBIR 


December 

L 


Cov?.4l By S.f E/oorroy- 


• Jer/oos Crro frW/Wgs com/ng hian^atio* DiUny . 

O Minot " " /> " * " " " « * 


Crossings imBrts , CA**»el Depth over Greet . 

" " ' " " .. .5" to 6 " . 

" " h n » * Hr PR o'* ano yew CrooHed. 

" « " " * '/ // " D£PTHS^f„t, 


Tflrer 


iHPRovliAtnr *i*ct ya*R MO. 


Tota.1 number crossings Depth or*r 6 Ft = 3-f 

" « « * " S to A Ft ^ ZJ 

a « v ii • « hA rrow rho ctooKoJL' St 

n .. « » /. « Dt/rik ?' 2 Ft.' (, 

Tota^ nr/ASer tfeross/w^s K.C. to Mouth = /£3 


Khhsps Cjtv Mtssow 7fwE.fr \kiiLR rionCo 
KANSRi CrtV.ffto. 

Walter S. D/c key.P res. 


House Doc. Ho. 463 ; 64th Cong., 1st Sess. 






























































































































































































































































































































































































































































' 




























































































































































































































































































































































































eoo 







































































































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 49 


of the old type, was rebuilt and made ready for service in 1911, in pursuance of the 
promise which had been made to the Rivers and Harbors Committee of Congress, that 
river service would begin in 1911 if Congress would begin the appropriations for river 
improvement. 

Meanwhile the towboat and barge system had been decided upon as the most de¬ 
sirable for inland water use, and the towboat A. M. Scott, with three all-steel mer¬ 
chandise barges, was put into service in the spring of 1912. Later in the season the 
small towboat Advance and an additional steel barge was put into service. Three 
additional steel barges were constructed and added to the fleet in the summer of 1913. 

This brings the history of the fleet down to the season of 1913, which is the season 
chosen by Col. Deakyne as illustrating the commercial possibilities of the Missouri 
River. The progress in two seasons from the old Texas-deck boat Chester, in 1911, to 
the fleet of two towboats and seven steel barges, in 1913, is a creditable showing. 
During the season of 1913 the boat line company was not able to accept all of the 
freight tendered to it, and this has been true frequently during its career, so that the 
amount of traffic carried in 1913 is by no means a criterion from which to judge the 
ultimate use of the river. It must be borne in mind, also, that the boat line was 
operating upon a partially improved river, and could only load its boats to a draft 
corresponding to the shallowest places in the stream between Kansas City and St. Louis. 
As it costs almost as much to operate a boat partially loaded, or with small draft, as 
it does to operate one fully loaded, and a full draft, it will readily be seen that carrying 
on operations upon a partially improved river was done at such a disadvantage and 
such an excessive cost of operation over what was normal and proper, that considerable 
capitalization was necessary to undertake the experiment. Nevertheless, it is safe 
to say that the deficit of the boat line company during the first three seasons of its 
operation will compare very advantageously with the deficits of any other new trans¬ 
portation line ever established. No railroad ever made operating expenses and fixed 
charges during its initial years. 

Further light is thrown upon the disadvantage of operating upon a partially im¬ 
proved river, in this fact—the engineers of the boat line company are of opinion that 
it is possible to operate upon a 6-foot channel steel barges with a capacity of 1,500 to 
2,000 tons. At the same time, some smaller barges ought to be operated to accommo¬ 
date special shippers at way points, but for through business the larger the barge the 
cheaper the handling. The first steel barges built by the boat fine company were 
1,400 tons. It was found that the partially improved river would not permit the 
operation of barges of this size without greater loss than was wise to be incurred; 
therefore as the building of barges progressed they were built in smaller sizes, to 
accommodate themselves to the shallow places in the river. The boat line company 
did not feel like investing all of its capital in large-size barges, which could not be 
used on the partially improved river; neither did it feel like investing too much of its 
capital in small barges which could be profitably used on the partially improved 
river but which would not be needed when the improvements were completed. It 
wisely concluded to hold back the major portion of its capital to be used in adding 
to its fleet as the improvements of the river progressed. Yet this very course of con¬ 
servative conduct on the part of the boat line company, which has insured the per¬ 
manency of its enterprise, is pointed out in Col. Deakyne’s report as a reason for aban¬ 
doning the improvement of the Missouri River. His‘argument is entirely based upon 
the tonnage carried in 1913 on a fleet of boats which was the very best which could 
be adapted to the state of the river in 1913. If the condition of the river during the 
season of 1913, and the progress of the improvements made by the Government up to 
that time are compared with the growth of traffic in 1913. ancl the growth of the fleet 
of boats upon the river, it will be seen that the commercial interests of Kansas City 
and the Missouri Valley have made a larger use of the river in proportion to its im¬ 
provement than the Government had reason to expect or anticipate. 

This encouraging use of the river can not, in fairness, be used as the measure of the 
ultimate use of the improved channel of 6-foot draft clear through from Kansas City 
to St. Louis. It must be borne in mind that the project was formally adopted by 
Congress after mature deliberation and ample examination and reexamination on 
July 25, 1912. Only one full navigation season succeeded that formal adoption by 
Congress—the season of 1913—and it is scarcely fair to take the very first season fol¬ 
lowing the adoption by Congress as the final criterion from which to judge of the com¬ 
mercial use of the river. It is hardly to be inferred that Congress mtends its judg¬ 
ment to be reversed on a project of this magnitude after an experience of but one year. 

H. Doc. 463, 64-1-4 


50 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Down to March 4, 1913, the total amount of appropriations for permanent improve¬ 
ment of the river had been $2,400,000. On March 4,1913, an additional appropriation 
of $2,000,000 was made, but it can not be said how much of this was actually reflected 
in the improved conditions of the river during the season of 1913. No further appro¬ 
priation was made until October 2, 1914, two full seasons later. As the appropriation 
of October 2, 1914, was practically at the close of construction season of that year, it 
would be available for construction work in the season of 1915. On March 4, 1915, a 
further appropriation of $1,000,000 was made, which would also be available for con¬ 
struction work in the season of 1915. This makes up the total appropriations of 
$6,250,000, and of this only about $4,000,000 had been expended, and had its effect 
upon the improvement of the stream up to March 4, 1915. In fact, the figures are 
given by Col. Deakyne himself in his report as $3,577,290.85. Of this amount 
nearly $300,000 was for maintenance, leaving $3,286,082.59. Of this last amount a 
further deduction must be made for the construction of the plant, valued at over 
$600,000, so that the actual amount which went upon the banks of the river, toward 
the establishment of a permanent channel, is relatively very small. We have seen 
that in the season of 1913, which Col. Deakyne chooses as the commercial criterion, 
the improvement of the banks had scarcely begun, and even in 1915, two years after 
the date of his estimate, his statement is that only 9 per cent of the project is completed. 

Attention is invited to the light which is thrown on the commercial use of the river, 
by a careful comparison of the progress of the Government work on the river, with the 
results of the various navigation seasons. 

Even in view of the fact that down to the season of 1915 only 9 per cent of the Gov¬ 
ernment work had been done we desire to invite your particular attention to the 
rapid growth of traffic upon the river. 

Was reexamination required from commercial or engineering standpoint ?—It is entirely 
conceivable that the purpose of Congress in ordering a reexamination of the Missouri 
River project in the river and harbor act of March 4, 1915, may have been to deter¬ 
mine whether from the progress already made the engineering project had been 
found to be sound and the plan feasible. 

It is conceivable that Congress would want to know before proceeding further with 
the work what had been the results, from an engineering standpoint, in the progress 
already made. If the district engineer in charge of the work had become satisfied 
from an experience of three seasons, that the plan of improvement was not practicable, 
or could not be carried out within the estimated cost, this information would have been 
of great importance to Congress, and would have shown that the improvement ought 
either to be abandoned or modified. But the experience of the district officer, in 
carrying out the plan of improvement, having demonstrated in a practical way the 
soundness of the opinion of the engineers who passed upon the plan of the improve¬ 
ment before it was adopted, it may be assumed that, in so far as is possible with an en¬ 
gineering work of such magnitude, the success of the undertaking and the correctness 
of the estimating of its cost is reasonably well settled. 

It is far more conceivable that Congress should be interested in knowing the results 
of progress, from an engineering standpoint, as tending to show the ultimate success 
or failure of the plan than that Congress should be interested in a reexamination by 
the district engineer of the commercial importance of the improvement. 

Congress must have assumed that the opportunities of the district engineer for 
passing upon the question of the present and prospective commercial value of the im¬ 
provement was much more limited than the opportunities of Congress itself. 

The data necessary to examine on this subject was not peculiarly within the reach 
of the district engineer. Great masses of it, of comparatively recent date, is already 
in the files of the Committee on Rivers and Harbors of the House of Representatives. 

It may be noted that the act of Congress providing for the reexamination of the 
Missouri River from Kansas City to the mouth was approved March 4, 1915. 

The report of the district officer recommending the abandonment of the permanent 
improvement of the Missouri River is dated April 22, 1915. In the brief time inter¬ 
vening between the act of Congress authorizing the reexamination and the report of 
the district officer it is not known what investigation was made into the commercial 
features bearing upon the importance of the project. The report bears upon its face 
evidence that no independent investigation was made along this line. It is based 
entirely upon two propositions: 

First, the general commerce on the river for the season of 1913; second, a comparison 
between that commerce and the commerce now carried on the Mississippi River be¬ 
tween the mouth of the Ohio and the mouth of the Missouri. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 51 


RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCE ON MISSOURI RIVER. 


Comparative tonnage statement of Kansas City- Missouri River Navigation Co. 


Season. 

Tons 

moved. 

Increase 
over previ¬ 
ous season. 

Increase. 

1911. 

1,084 
5,215 
9,784 
13,677 
27,306 


Per cent. 

1912. 

4,131 
4,569 
3,893 
* 19,480 

381 
87.6 
39.8 
* 142.4 

1913. 

1914. 

1915 i. 



1 Tonnage calculated to Oct. 1, 1915. Season ends Nov. 15, 1915. Full season’s tonnage on this basis 
would he 33,157 tons. 

2 Increase based on full season. 

3 Percentage increase based on full season. 


Ton-mile movement. 


Season. 

Total 

ton-miles. 

Season. 

Total 

ton-miles. 

1911 . 

435,728 

1,889,467 

3,604,316 

1914. 5 . 

4,771,107 
10,708,399 

1912 . 

1915 (to Oct. 1). 

1913. 






It appears from this statement that the growth of the boat-line traffic has been very 
rapid and with the connections now established and the business which has now been 
worked up through shippers the growth will be more rapid in the immediate future. 
It takes time to work up a new business and to get the line known to the shipping 
public. 

It will be observed that in the year 1913, upon which Col. Deakyne bases his esti¬ 
mate of the commercial use of the river, the boat line carried but 9,784 tons, out of a 
total of 37,551 tons of general merchandise. In the season of 1915 the boat line alone 
will carry 33,157 tons, which is three and one-half times the tonnage it carried in 1913, 
and nearly as much ?s the entire traffic of 1913 as stated in the Deakyne report. The 
ton-mile movement also indicates the increase of through shipments of high-grade 
freight. 

The second proposition will be discussed in a subsequent chapter under section 14. 

Increased equipment for the boat line under way. —The statement of Mr. A. W. Mackie: 
“While willing and anxious to expend whatever sum might be necessary to deter¬ 
mine the best types of boats and barges for this service, the results of which experi¬ 
ments have no doubt been of very great benefit to all of those interested in inland 
water craft, the management of the navigation company naturally does not wish to 
expend all of its funds for shallow-draft boats, the power of which is limited by the 
available draft in the unimproved river, when it was justified in expecting channel 
improvement to continue until a 6-foot channel would be assured and on which 
draft much more powerful boats could operate with relatively greater economy.. It 
is submitted that, no matter how modern in design and economical in operation, 
towboats perfectly suited to present channel conditions will be forced to the scrap 
heap or out of the trade because of what the Interstate Commerce Commission terms 
‘obsolescence/ when it is possible to employ deeper draft, and, therefore, much more 
powerful units. (Witness the many excellent steel and iron boats in the scrap heaps 
of the Great Lakes because of obsolescence.) A new power plant was installed on 
the towboat Advance in 1914, increasing her towing capacity to that of the A. M. Scott 
and all that could be provided on a draft limit of 3 feet. Material reductions in the 
appropriations required under the adopted project resulted in less improvement than 
had been anticipated and the navigation company found it necessary to provide 
lighters for use in the low-water season. As there are seldom more than one or two 
extremely shallow crossings at any one time, it is found desirable to load the mer¬ 
chandise barges to a reasonable capacity and lighter them over such one or two shal¬ 
low crossings. Four steel barges for this service have been built in Kansas City this 
summer. During stages of higher water these lighters are also used to carry such 
commodities as do not require housing in transit and for transporting from local points 



























52 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 


such commodities as grain, hay, apples, live stock, and other freight not highly per¬ 
ishable, the barges being dropped at landings to be loaded by the shipper without 
delay to the towboat, and when loaded picked up by the next passing towboat.” 

The operation of these new barges is shown in the following clipping from the Kan¬ 
sas City Times, October 12, 1915: 

BOATS BUSY EVERY MINUTE—CAPACITY CARGOES OF APPLES AND WHEAT BEING 

HANDLED. 

The new light-draft barges of the Kansas City-Missouri River Navigation Co. are 
being operated to capacity these days. One of the three already in service, loaded 
with building materials, was taken down the river from here Sunday by the tow 
steamer Advance to Miami, Mo. There the steamer picked up the two others that 
had been loaded with 2,000 barrels of apples. 

They will be docked in Kansas City to-day and the apples placed in storage here. 
The barge now at Miami will be taken downstream to be loaded with a capacity 
cargo of corn and wheat for shipment to St. Louis, and there it will be loaded again 
with structural steel for delivery here. The fourth of the small barges probably wdll 
be completed for service next week. 

The steamer Advance, after returning to Kansas City this morning from Miami, 
will pick up one of the larger barges, already loaded, for an immediate down-river 
trip to St. Louis. 

Wharves and warehouses. —The futility of attempting to revive river navigation 
without modern terminals was recognized by Kansas City, and while promoting the 
barge line attention was given to the terminal matter. This resulted in a public bond 
issue of $75,000, out of the proceeds of which a municipal terminal was constructed at 
Kansas City on water-front property owned by the city. After having the bonds voted, 
considerable effort and money was expended in clearing the title to the property. 
The Kansas City Municipal Terminal, completed in 1911, consists of a wharf 550 feet 
long and 50 feet wide, equipped with a 2-ton electric crane, operating on a track 
extending along the wharf from end to end, and a steel and concrete warehouse ad¬ 
joining the wharf, 306 feet long and 40 feet wide, equipped with an electric telpher. 
This wharf is served by a switch track connecting with all rail lines entering Kansas 
City. The growth of river business necessitates the building of an additional track 
and the provision of an additional freight-handling unit, both of which will be ready 
for service in the spring of 1916. The navigation company found it necessary to erect, 
at its own expense, a modern terminal at East St. Louis, with a switch track connected 
to all rail lines entering that port. This terminal is equipped with an electric con¬ 
veyor and a telpher. The operation of this terminal and the volume of exchange 
freight there, handled with rail lines, has done much to encourage the city of St. 
Louis in the matter of a municipal terminal, the funds for which are now available 
and the plans nearing completion. 

Many cities on the Missouri River, between Kansas City and St. Louis, are now 
contemplating the erection of river terminals. The navigation company has pre¬ 
pared plans for such terminals and has the assurance that a number of them will be 
erected as soon as the channel is permanently improved in front of the various towns. 
One association of farmers has already erected a warehouse for the accumulation and 
shipment of farm products. Two old-time river warehouses have been revived, and 
other farm districts are preparing to erect warehouses so that conditions along the 
Missouri River may be said to have very favorably improved since the resumption 
of navigation. 

Farmers can ship direct to market. —On this point Mr. A. W. Mackie says: “Since 
the value to the producer of grain and farm products is the price at the market less 
the cost of transportation to market, it is worthy of note that navigation of the Mis¬ 
souri enables producers to ship at water rates direct from farm to market, thus 
obtaining full market price for such product, less the water transportation rate to 
market, instead of being obliged to sell to a middleman at from 5 to 10 cents per bushel 
under the market, where grain is accumulated in rail elevators. Or, in the case of 
other farm products, the farmer has the option of shipping to the larger market whereas, 
without navigation, he is compelled to accept local prices or sell to a middleman. ” 

Net saving in freight rates. —On this point Mr. A. W. Mackie says: “The water rates 
in effect between Kansas City and St. Louis are 20 per cent less than existing rail 
rates, and include warehouse delivery of carloads to industries receiving such service 
on rail shipments. In other words, the 20 per cent reduction is a net saving of 20 
per cent to shipper. By according shippers the same delivery conditions as ob¬ 
tained by rail movement; by handling freight in steel, weatherproof cargo houses; 
by transshipping directly and promptly from car to barge and barge to car; by pro¬ 
viding marine insurance without additional cost and promptly paying all damage 


A/oss as C//<y Arfu/ 7 /c//sa/ JDoc/C , /9/S. 

600 fo /7 3o/yes ‘Z>e//a ’os?3 ‘3ps//o/?'’a/ 7 c//<?&/> /on33a e s4//?/7<7 "// 7 /?orf. 























1 

I 

If 

v* 

<3 


I 


$ 


^r § 

§ t >- 

:HI 


fc 

I 

So 


I 


■s 

$ 


S><k 
§* 


I 

I 

I 

$ 


m 
</> 
















































. Doc. 463, 64-1. 















































ZzasTStL ou/s Term//?#/, Ao/?sos C//y M/ ssour/ff/i/er Afai/J/pof/o/? Co. 

Bor^e "C/7/77/770 '/oarf/ny tv//// e/ec/r/o Te/pAer 0/7C cootreyor. C/'orv/y-o/rz S00//7. 




















m 

vD 

6 

o 

□ 
















MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 53 

claims; by receiving and delivering freight every day; and by rendering regular 
dependable service throughout the season, we are enabled to solicit and secure, 
purely upon the merits of the service, freight of almost every class and kind. Having 
developed the service to this extent, it is fair to assume that the river will secure its 
fair share of the business. Boats now operate continuously, night and day, upstream; 
only daylight downstream. With further channel improvement, continuous night 
and day operation will follow, both upstream and down, thus shortening the time of 
delivery and improving the service. With the addition of another towboat now being 
designed, and other boats and barges as the channel is improved, the volume of freight 
moving by river will surely continue to largely increase from year to year as it has 
done in the past, since the improvement project was begun.” 

Analysis of Report of District Officer. 

Section 4. 

RIVER TRAFFIC HAS INCREASED FASTER THAN THE GOVERNMENT WORK HAS 

PROGRESSED. 

“It is estimated that the project is about 9 per cent completed. There have been 
large expenditures for plant since the inception of the project, and for that reason and 
on account of the lack of appropriations, at the proper rate, the amount expended 
and the percentage completed appear out of proportion.” 

The district officer states that the improvement of the river was only 9 per cent 
completed by March 4, 1915. The stage of completion at the beginning of the season 
of 1913 would, therefore, be less than one-half of this. If such a test were applied to 
a projected railroad 1,000 miles in length it would assume that when 50 miles were 
completed at any portion of the projected line a correct estimate could be based on 
the extent of the actual traffic over the partially completed line to determine whether 
the entire 1,000 miles would pay interest and operating expenses upon the investment. 

It is only fair, however, to say that his statement that 9 per cent of the work was 
completed on March 4, 1915, does not give a clear and comprehensive view of the 
situation. He probably means that 9 per cent of the work contemplated in the 
$20,000,000 proposition was completed, but counting the portion of the river which 
had been permanently improved by the Missouri River Commission and the portion 
that was navigable in its natural state it is probable that between 30 and 40 per cent 
of the river was open to navigation in the season of 1915. It is the remaining 60 per 
cent, therefore, which will be put in condition for permanent navigation by the 
completion of the $20,000,000 project. It is this 60 per cent, however, of river which 
is navigable only under favorable conditions of high water and to a limited extent 
that is holding back the use of the river as a freight carrier. A railroad might be able 
to begin carrying freight even though all of its bridges were not in place because it 
could under th' spur of necessity transfer its freight around a number of bad and 
impassable places, but the difference between operating under these conditions 
and operating after the last bridge is in place and trains of full capacity can go through 
from one treminus to the other without interruption is apparent. This is more nearly 
the condition of traffic on a partially improved river. 

Emphasis is placed upon this point by a statement in the district officer’s report 
itself m a succeeding paragraph. In paragraph No. 15 he says: 

“Any attempt at partial improvement seems futile because the draft of boats, and, 
therefore, their cargoes, will be determined by the least existing depth. If the river 
is improved at all, the work should be complete as to the protection of banks and con¬ 
trol of channels.” 

It is strange, therefore, that this very important element was omitted from his con¬ 
sideration in the status of commerce in 1913. 

Increase in high-grade commerce .—But we may again quote the district officer’s state¬ 
ment in another connection: 

[Extract from annual report of Lieut. Col. Deakyne, Oct. 5,1914.] 

“In high grade commerce there has been a decided increase. Total mileage for 
the year was 5,173,170 ton-miles. The commerce of this section of the river is now 
in process of changing and increasing. The Kansas City Missouri River Navigation 
Co., organized with a capital of about $1,200,000, operated its first boats during 1911. 
The company has three small steel-hull towboats, eight barges, and several smaller 
craft. A municipally owned creosoted pile wharf 500 feet in length has been com¬ 
pleted at Kansas Citv, and a terminal warehouse 306 by 40 feet built on the wharf, 
arranged with locomotive cranes and telpherage system of handling freight. (For 


54 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


detailed description, see Annual Report, Chief of Engineers, 1912, p. 2202.) The 
company also has a warehouse and wharf at East St. Louis, Ill., and is arranging with 
the towns on the Missouri River between Kansas City and the mouth for local freight 
landings. The boat rates now in force are about 80 per cent of the rail rates. It is 
estimated that the sum of $2,200,000 can be profitably expended during the fiscal 
year of 1916 in the construction of systematic improvement works, maintenance of 
existing works, and in snagging.” 

Note his statement: 

“In high-grade commerce there has been a decided increase. The commerce of 
this section of the river is now in process of changing and increasing.” 

This report was dated October 5, 1914, and has a very different sound than the 
report of April 22, 1915. 

A fair way of expressing the growth of commerce on the Missouri River is not a simple 
statement of tons carried on the river, but by a comparison of ton-miles. In the sea¬ 
son of 1906, as shown by [IJouse] Document 1120, Sixtieth Congress, second session, 
the total ton-mileage from Sioux City to the mouth was 2,324,379. In 1913, as shown 
by the annual report of the district officer, the total ton-mileage for the reach of the 
river between Kansas City and the mouth was 5,173,170. This growth in ton-mileage 
is more eloquent of increased traffic than a mere statement of aggregate tons carried. 
In 1913 on the reach of the river between Kansas City and the mouth upon which 
improvements had begun there was more than double the ton-mileage of the year 
1906 on the entire river from Sioux City to the mouth. This means a longer haul for 
commodities and shows the diminishing importance of a short haul, which was prin¬ 
cipally sand and lumber. 

Feasible from engineer’s standpoint. —The improvement of the Missouri River for 
navigation by securing a permanent 6-foot channel is entirely feasible from an engi¬ 
neering standpoint. This decision has been reached by every engineer, from the days 
of the Missouri River Commission downward. The estimate of the cost arrived at by 
the report of Capt. Schulz was $20,000,000 for the reach between Kansas City and the 
mouth, with an addition of $500,000 a year for maintenance, and $60,000 a year for 
snagging. This estimate was verified by the special board of engineers appointed 
under the river and harbor act of 1910. It met the approval of Gen. W. H. Bixby, 
whose personal familiarity with the river had enabled him to pass upon the question 
from a practical standpoint. That the project is feasible, and the estimate is sub¬ 
stantially correct, is now admitted by the report of Lieut. Col. Deakyne, now before 
your board. In the fourth paragraph of his report, he says: 

“But it has been demonstrated that the work can be done within the estimated 
unit cost,, and it is my opinion that with appropriations at the rate of $2,000,000 per 
year for improvement and sufficient funds for maintenance, the project could be 
completed within the total estimated cost.” 

Sections 5 and 6. 

THE RIVER IS CHARGED WITH ITEMS WHICH WERE NOT ESTIMATED AND WHICH HAVE 

NOT ACCRUED. 

The report undertakes, on the basis of the present commerce, on a partially improved 
river, to decide the question of the commercial returns on the investment of the Gov¬ 
ernment money in the improvement. It says: 

“Assuming the money of the Government to be worth 3 per cent interest, the total 
estimated cost of the project represents $600,000 per year interest. Adding the 
maintenance cost of $500,000 per year, gives $1,100,000 per year as the permanent 
charge to the Government resulting from the execution and maintenance of this 
project.” 

Interest charge on governmental appropriations a new element. —Again, the district 
officer introduces an element into the charge against the project, which is entirely 
new, in allowing interest on the estimated total cost of the project. 

No such element was taken into consideration by Gen. Bixby, or any of the engineers 
who passed upon the proposed project. It has not been taken into consideration in 
any Government work of this nature, so far as we are aware. Interest on the cost of 
construction is not even charged against the irrigation projects of the West, although 
the law expressly requires that the estimated cost of the project be returned by the 
land benefited. No interest was charged against the amount expended for the con¬ 
struction of the Panama Canal. It would be interesting to see how the theory of the 
district officer would apply to the Panama Canal. 

The construction of the Panama Canal, so far as active work is concerned, may be 
said to have begun in 1905. There were no earnings during the construction period 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 55 


from the canal itself. It has cost, including fortification and protection, approxi¬ 
mately $400,000,000. Interest on the sums expended during the progress of con¬ 
struction was never charged or contemplated, although the law provided for the issue 
of bonds to pay for the work, which, if issued, would have imposed a direct interest 
charge of 3 per cent on the Federal Treasury. The canal was opened in August, 1914. 
For the year ending July 31, 1915, the total net tonnage passing through the canal 
was 4,390,405, Panama Canal measurement. The total net collections of tolls were 
$4,909,150.96. The canal is now closed by slides and will remain closed until No¬ 
vember 1. It was the intention of Congress to fix the tolls at a rate that would cover 
operating expenses, as operating expenses are directly connected with the movement 
of vessels, and increase as the tonnage increases. But under date of October 9, 1915, 
Maj. F. C. Boggs, Corps of Engineers, United States Army, writes as follows: 

“The governor of the Panama Canal last year estimated the cost of operation and 
maintenance of the canal would be $5,500,000 annually. This is exclusive of interest 
on the cost of construction of the canal or authorization of indebtedness. Neither 
does it include the item of $250,000 paid annually by the United States to the Republic 
of Panama.” 

The annual interest charge on the cost at 3 per cent would be $12,000,000. Add to 
this the annual rental to the Republic of Panama, $250,000—$12,250,000. 

The canal is not now making operating expenses. Even after the receipts from 
tolls begin to show a slight gain over operating expenses, who can say that they will 
within any reasonable time overtake this interest charge? 

If the earnings from tolls should at any time show a very substantial profit over 
operating expenses there would be an immediate demand, as there is in the Post 
Office Department, to reduce the rates. 

Clearly the dividend which the American people expect from this mighty work of 
engineering is the enlargement of the Nation’s commercial opportunities, the control 
of facilities which will expand its commerce, “the extension of America’s waist line,” 
and the “wedding of the waters” that brings the Pacific coast ports close to those 
of the Atlantic, and binds the ends of the country together for peace and war. The 
American Nation was not looking simply for a chance to invest Federal capital at 3 
per cent interest, for it can get a better rate than that on farm mortgages. 

Maintenance has been paid out oj appropriations for construction. —Clearly, the district 
officer does not mean to be understood that this charge of $1,100,000 is now running 
against the project, although from the fact that he compares it in paragraph 11 with 
the earnings from traffic in 1913 would seem to indicate that he did. It may not be 
fair to take the cost of the project 20 years from now and balance it against the freight 
traffic two years ago. The fact is, very little of the Government money has been spent, 
and the maintenance and snagging charge has all been absorbed and included in 
what has been spent, so that it has all been figured into the construction account. 
No maintenance charge and snagging have been paid separate from the construction 
account. Even if they are separately considered, it is further apparent that the 
growth of the maintenance charge will extend over a long period of years, determined 
by the rapidity with which the project is completed, and therefore it can not be 
stated in the gross amount of $1,100,000 and compared with the freight earnings of 1913. 

Section 7. 

NAVIGATION, RECLAMATION, AND FLOOD PROTECTION ARE INSEPARABLE. 

“The benefits derived are represented by the increased facilities for navigation. 
There are other incidental benefits, such as the protection of lands from erosion and 
the amelioration of flood conditions, but these have not been recognized as proper 
objects of governmental expenditure on the Missouri River, and are therefore not 
considered in the analysis.” 

While it is true that the Government has been following for some years the theory 
of improving inland waterways solely for the benefits to navigation, and not for the 
protection or conservation of riparian lands, yet it has been found that the reclamation 
of lands is inseparable from the improvement of the channel. The two are so closely 
united and so absolutely impossible to divorce, that even in the reports of the Army 
engineers themselves appear repeated references to the effect of the improvements 
upon riparian lands. 

[Extract rom Capt. Schulz’s report, H. Doc. No. 1120, p. 12, 60th Cong., 2d sess. 1 

“The drainage area of the Missouri is approximately 580,000 square miles. The 
country through which the Missouri flows is mostly one of small rainfall. Its most 
salient and striking features are the remarkable impetuosity of its current and its 


56 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


elope, which is considerable for so large a stream. The rapidity of the current and the 
general instability of the banks cause turbidity, which has won it the title of ‘the 
Big Muddy. ’ It is the greatest silt carrier in the country. Its influence upon the 
Mississippi River is most remarkable, and it is its prototype in many features. The 
subject of its improvement is therefore of the greatest importance to the improvement 
of the Mississippi.” 

On page 13 of this report Capt. Schulz gives figures showing that the total amount 
of sediment carried by the Missouri River annually into the Mississippi River is 
about 11,000,000,000 cubic feet, equivalent to one square mile 400 feet deep. 

[Extract from a report of Capt. Schulz, H. Doc. No. 1120, p. 9, 60th Cong., 2d sess. 

“On that part of the river where continuous work was done the results were remark¬ 
able. A continuous channel of not less than 6 feet was obtained in a stretch of 45 
miles over what was originally the worst part of the river. In a distance of 18 miles 
near Jefferson City the area of lands recovered was 5,500 acres, and lands protected 
12,800 acres. There is hardly a doubt that similar results would have been produced 
over the entire river.” 

[Extract from the report of Col. D. W. Lockwood, senior member of the Board of Engineers for Rivers 
and Harbors, upon the report of Capt. Schulz, H. Doc. No. 1120, p. 59, 60th Cong., 2d sess.] 

“In addition to the advantages that would result to navigation and commerce from 
an improved river, large areas of fertile land would be reclaimed, protected, and made 
available for cultivation, and the sediment now carried would be reduced in amount, 



Statement of Gen. W. L. Marshall, Chief of Engineers. 

[H. Doc. No. 1120, p. 3, 60th Cong., 2d sess.] 

“ In addition to the advantages that would result to navigation and commerce from 
an improved river, large areas of fertile land would be reclaimed, protected, and made 
available for cultivation, and the sediment now carried would be reduced in amount 
with resulting benefits extending even to the Mississippi River below the mouth of 
the Missouri.” 


Statement of Judge Richard Field, of Lexington, Mo. 

|H. Doc. No. 1287, p. 21, 61st Cong., 3d sess.] 

“I understood one of the board to interrogate the gentleman who has just spoken as 
to whether he spoke to river navigation or whether he spoke to reclamation. Now, 
it seems to me that the two things are so closely related that they are inseparable! 
When you do work looking to land reclamation you are thereby improving the river 
navigation. By the work that is done along the banks to prevent the river from over¬ 
flowing these farms and confining it to a narrower limit than it otherwise would be 
confined to, you certainly are improving river navigation. Therefore, I say that the 
two things go together.” 

Preliminary report of Inland Waterways Commission. 

[Pp. 21-22.] 

“Any comprehensive system of improvement of inland waterways will necessarily 
affect the drainage or reclamation of swamp and overflow lands, which are mainly 
rich alluvial tracts largely along or near waterways. The construction of dikes and 
levees or bank protective works and the deepening of channels are often closely 
connected with means of control both of overflow and of underflow by drainage. 

“It is estimated that there are 77,000,000 acres of such land now unproductive,* 
but which, with drainage and protection from overflow, will have an exceptionally 
high agricultural value. If divided into 40-acre farms, these lands will furnish homes 
for some 10,000,000 people. 

“The annual soil wash in mainland United States is estimated at about 1,000,000,000 
tons, of which the greater part is the most valuable portion of the soil; it is’carried 
into the rivers, where it pollutes the waters, necessitates frequent and costly dredging, 
and reduces the efficiency of works designed to facilitate navigation and afford pro¬ 
tection from floods. The direct and indirect losses from this source have not been 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 57 


measured, but are exceedingly large; and it is desirable that definite determinations 
be made, with the view of devising means for reducing the loss to the land and pre¬ 
venting the impairment of the streams for purposes of commerce.” 

Preliminary report of Inland Waterways Commission. 

[P. 20 .] 

Engineering works designed to improve navigation affect favorably the regimen of 
the streams, including floods and low waters. The annual floods of the United States 
occasion loss of property reaching many millions of dollars, with considerable loss of life, 
while the low water of late summer involves large loss in diminished water supply, in 
reduced power, and in the fouling of streams, with consequent disease and death. It 
has been claimed that in specific cases the cost of works required both to control floods 
and meet the needs of commerce would be less than the amount of this loss. It is 
desirable that more detailed information be collected concerning the effects of floods 
and low waters and their prevention by engineering works and other devices. 

River improvement for every legitimate benefit. —It may well be that the Government, 
instead of attempting to follow a barren precedent of regarding the improvement of 
the rivers entirely from the standpoint of navigation, will, in the near future, adopt 
a general policy of conservation which looks to the improvement of the inland water¬ 
ways as a scientific whole. Every benefit that can result from such improvement, 
tending toward the growth in wealth and social condition of the American people, is a 
legitimate object of such improvement, and time continues to demonstrate the impos¬ 
sibility of separating one from the other. 

Local cooperation has taken care of levee construction.- —The character of the Missouri 
River is such that it changes its course very frequently when left in an unimproved 
and unregulated state and shifts its main channel tlirough the soft, alluvial earth, 
over a space from 2 to 7 miles wide between the rock bluffs. On the Missouri River 
there has never been any improvement undertaken by the Government in the way of 
building levees, or otherwise, for the purpose of flood protection. This fact was 
emphasized by the special examining board of Army engineers, in speaking of the 
necessity and propriety of local cooperation. They point out that local cooperation 
on the Missouri has already gone and is preparing to go to the extent of flood protec¬ 
tion. The building of levees entirely at the expense of the local levee districts pro¬ 
ceeds as rapidly as the Government permits such work to be done, by establishing 
and maintaining the channel of the river. It is impossible for the adjoining land- 
owners, however much they may desire to do so, to engage in any effective form of 
levee protection until the Federal Government has first restrained the stream within 
a definite channel. 

[Extract from report of special report of board of engineers, H. Doc. No. 1287, 61st Cong., 3d sess.] 

“It is also considered proper to draw attention to the fact that the public hearing of 
November 14, 1910, disclosed that the owners of bottom lands along the river were 
merely awaiting the protection of the banks before beginning the construction of 
levees on an extensive scale. As soon as the United States has rendered the banks 
secure local interests will find it possible and profitable to build levees, and the river 
improvement should be so conducted as to insure that the distance between the levees 
on opposite banks shall be sufficient to prevent damage to the low-water channel by 
floods which may have discharges from 750,000 to 900,000 second-feet.” 

Statement of Gen. W. H. Bixby , Chief of Engineers. 

[H. Doc. No. 1287, 61st Cong., 3d sess.] 

“It was developed at the public hearing, held November 14, 1910, that the owners 
of bottom lands along the river were merely awaiting the protection of the banks before 
beginning the construction of levees on an extensive scale.” 

Statement of Hon. D. S. Alexander , chairman of House Committee on Rivers and Harbors. 

[H. Doc. No. 1287, p. 21, 61st Cong., 3d sess.] 

“Moreover, the thorough improvement of this reach of the river would be an ad¬ 
vantage not only to commerce, but large areas of land would be protected and re¬ 
claimed This river is one of the most destructive on the globe. The local engineer 
reports that every change in velocity or direction of current means new erosion and 
subsequent partial deposit, causing untold loss in value of land and products. He 
estimates the bottom land threatened, or to be benefited, on this reach at more than 


58 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


500,000 acres, worth in the neighborhood of $50,000,000, or two and one-half times 
what the entire improvement is expected to cost. This indicates that cooperation 
on the part of the local interests may be required, as it has been on the Mississippi 
below Cairo, and a special board is provided for to reconsider the project, with a view 
to special consideration of the question of cooperation.” 

Statement of Gen. W. H. Bixby , Chief of Engineers. 

[H. Doc. No. 1287, p. 3, 61st Cong., 3d sess.] 

“I concur with the board that the levee construction should be left to the riparian 
owners and that, as a general rule, other cooperation will be impracticable; but I 
consider that along city points, or at other special localities where large interests are 
involved, cooperation in the way of bank protection may properly be required.” 

Growth of levee districts between Kansas City and mouth. 

In 1910, at the hearing before the special board of engineers, the deputy State labor 
commissioner made the following statement: 

“ I will say further to the board that I believe we have about 12 levee districts that 
are in the process of formation along the Missouri River, extending from the city of 
St. Charles to Kansas City. These levee districts contain probably an average of 
4,000 acres each, or about 48,000 or 50,000 acres in round numbers.” 

By 1913 the number of levee districts between Kansas City and the mouth had 
increased to 32, the acreage protected was 215,573, and the amount invested 
$1,449,090.91. 

Levee construction must stop if Col. Deakyne’s report is approved. 

We desire to impress very earnestly upon this board the fact that one of the effects 
of adopting the Missouri River project by the Federal Government in 1910 and 1912 
was to encourage the State of Missouri to a renewed activity along the lines of levee 
protection. As fast as the Government work progressed and a definite idea could be 
gained by the landowners of the permanent location of the channel, they have engaged 
m the formation of local levee districts. The possibility of a continuance of levee 
building in Missouri depends entirely upon the decision on the continuation of the 
channel improvements. If channel improvement is abandoned now, the work of 
levee protection, so well begun by the local landowners, must also be abandoned and 
the Missouri River left as a menace to the State of Missouri without power either in 
the State or the landowners to protect themselves from its ravages. 

Reclaimed lands contribute to commerce. —But the question of the reclamation of 
riparian lands is more intimately still connected with commerce. There are in the 
Missouri bottoms, between Kansas City and the mouth, approximately 500,000 acres 
of land subject to overflow. Fifty per cent of this land is overflowed so frequently 
as to be practically worthless. The remaining 50 per cent is subject to periodical 
overflow, which reduces its value more than one-half, and renders its permanent 
improvement and occupation by families impossible. If the Government proceeds 
with the rectification of the channel, the landowners are prepared to proceed with 
the construction of levees to reclaim all of this land. It will then be subject to culti¬ 
vation and occupation as homes, with practical safety, except during the rare occa¬ 
sions, two or three times a century, when there are extraordinary floods. The increase 
in value of this farm land can readily be estimated at the present value of farm land 
in the same county. It is the richest and most productive farm land in the United 
States. The surplus production on. this 500,000 acres, in the way of agricultural 
products and live stock, will all be directly tributary to the river, and will add to the 
traffic. The river will be its nearest, cheapest, and most direct avenue of transpor¬ 
tation, and this surplus production can be counted upon to furnish what is so much 
needed on American streams, the local traffic which is such an important feature of 
European rivers. 

Not only will all the outgoing commodities from this reclaimed region be added to 
the commercial traffic of the river, but the presence of a large and productive popu¬ 
lation immediately adjacent to the river will add a consuming power for incoming 
commodities. The ordinary exchanges of trade will bring into this consuming popu¬ 
lation another large mass of co mm odities which will practically double the outgoing 
traffic. It will be seen, therefore, that the reclamation of adjoining lands is not an 
entirely separate subject from the protection of the channel for navigation, but, on 
the contrary, it is a necessary and extremely important element in the commercial 
value of the improved river. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 59 

Statement of Deputy State Labor Commissioner J. H. Nolen. 

[H. Doc. No. 1287, p. 53, 61st Cong., 3d sess.] 

“Between Kansas City, Mo., and the river’s mouth is a large area of the most fertile 
land in Missouri, one-half of which has probably never been cultivated because of 
the frequent overflows, but is subject to redemption by use of levees. The other 
half is cultivated annually, but an average of one crop out of every three is destroyed 
by floods, and the crops on some of the lowest fields are ruined more frequently. 
Such flood loss can be prevented in the future by the construction of levees. 

“This lowland is capable of producing at least 15,000,000 bushels of grain annually. 
The proximity of this land to the river makes it convenient for the farmers to deliver 
their products to the boat landings for transportation to market, and boats should 
haul all of it. The revenue derived from transporting 50 per cent of this grain, at 
even a lower rate than is now charged by the railroads, will amount to more than 
$350,000 annually, and this sum would greatly encourage river traffic when added to 
their other receipts.” 

Sections 8, 9, and 10. 

PRESENT AND PROSPECTIVE COMMERCE. 

The commerce to be considered is present and prospective , and the advantages 
the commerce will obtain from the improvement are the actual saving in freight 
charges by the use of the river and the effect on railroad freight rates produced by 
the possibility of water transportation. 

This statement omits an important element in the advantage of an improved river, 
which is the increase of facilities for transportation. An increase of transportation 
facilities in any productive territory has universally resulted in an increase of traffic. 
Traffic springs up along the line of a channel of commerce because the very presence 
of transportation facilities invites the location of new enterprises, the enlargement 
of existing enterprises, and the increased production of the territory. This is due 
to the fact that many natural resources become profitable when they are adjacent to 
convenient means of transportation when they could not be developed under other 
circumstances and to the further fact that cheap and convenient methods of trans¬ 
portation tend to an increase of both the production and consumption of the territory 
served. It is not necessary to enlarge upon this idea, as it is fundamental in the con¬ 
struction of all new transportation lines. 

The term “ present commerce” is all inclusive. It must embrace all traffic flowing 
from the Missouri River section of States; the products of commerce and industry 
of cities in said section, all of which is tributary to Missouri River transportation, 
but little of which has thus far actually moved upon the river. The term embraces 
all of the traffic moving east and west in this territory, served by the Missouri River 
and not alone the business which the river actually obtained in the year 1913, nor 
since. We call attention to the exhibits showing the actual traffic of the rail ar- 
riers for the year 1914 eastbound from and via Kansas City and the other Missouri 
River cities, embracing only the business originating in those cities and in the States 
of Kansas and Nebraska. The Kansas City figures include the tonnage from Kansas 
City proper and from the State of Kansas and the southern counties in Nebraska. 
This is the present commerce stated concretely and most of it must be taken into 
account in your computations, at least all that could be practically handled by water 
transportation upon the improved river as contemplated. . 

The prospective commerce must be built up upon an estimation based upon 
the actual movement via the railroads as before referred to for the last calendar year 
in eastward direction, and the westbound movement for the same period based upon 
previous percentage relationship as shown in tables covering actual rail tonnage 
east and west in 1906 (the last year composite figures westbound were compiled by 
carriers) allowing for the enormous industrial development and population growth 
of this territory in the meantime. This has had a marked tendency to increase the 
consumption of eastern manufactures and semimanufactured raw materials, which 
it may fairly be inferred might increase the rate of growth of westbound traffic based 
upon the comparative production of this section in agricultural products, which 

constitutes a large portion of the eastbound traffic. . 

Importance to agricultural regions west of the Missouri River—F he great agricul¬ 
tural region extending from the Missouri River to the Rocky Mountains is tributary 
to that stream in all matters affecting transportation rates, because its surplus products 
move to market in a general eastward direction, and principally through the river 
crossings. Surplus agricultural products seeking a market must inevitably face the 


60 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


strongest competition; competition which is world-wide in its operation. Such 
surplus is worth to its producer what it will sell for in the greatest central market of 
the world less the cost of transportation thither, allowing for the difference of quality 
and grades. Broadly speaking, surplus agriculture products have no value until 
they reach the seaboard and enter into the commerce of the world. By surplus 
products is meant, of course, the amount produced beyond the necessities of local 
consumption, and as long as a locality produces a surplus the value of that surplus 
in the foreign market is reflected even in the value of the amount consumed at home. 
A bushel of wheat produced in Kansas, Oklahoma, or Nebraska comes in competition 
with the wheat of Siberia, Manchuria, India, Australia, South Africa, Russia, and 
the Balkan States, as well as with the wheat of Canada and Argentina. 

Without entering into a discussion as to whether the producer or consumer ulti¬ 
mately pays the cost of transportation it may be said with truth that as to surplus 
agricultural products designed for export, every dollar paid for transportation to the 
seaboard is a dollar out of the pocket of the producer and lessens the net return on his 
product. Every dollar saved in the transportation to the seaboard is a dollar remain¬ 
ing in the pocket of the producer which adds to local wealth and enters into all the 
channels of retail trade at the point of production. The great grain States of the 
Missouri Valley are confronted with the one vital and ever present problem of trans¬ 
portation, and may the time never come when they are not confronted with this prob¬ 
lem, for when that time comes it will mean that they no longer have a surplus of 
commodities to sell, and the balance of trade has turned against them. Both in the 
interests of the producer and in the interest of the consuming public every legitimate 
effort should be made to increase the facilities and cheapen the cost of transportation, 
and the solution of one element of the problem is but an advanced step toward the 
solution of others. 

It is beyond dispute that the growth of waterborne traffic on the Great Lakes and 
the improvements to navigation provided by the Federal Government, including the 
locks at Saulte Ste. Marie, have added to the value of every bushel of grain produced 
in the great Northwest. These improvements have made the cultivation of grain 
profitable, advanced the value of farm land, and tended to the rapid settlement of the 
country. With this rapid settlement has come the increase of consuming power that 
provides an incoming traffic of equal value. These advantages have extended far 
up into Canada, hundreds of miles north of the American border. The farmers of the 
Missouri Valley and the Southwest are entitled to an equally earnest attempt on the 
part of the Federal Government to develop their natural means of communications, 
and to improve all the channels of commerce which nature has provided. 

The Missouri River brings the advantage of water competition farther into the great 
grain belt of the country than any other channel. Its improvement is a permanent 
addition to the transportation facilities of the trans-Mississippi territory and will, 
unless it proves wholly impossible of successful navigation, increase the value of 
farm lands and the value of farm products and the prosperity of inland towns in every 
section of its valley. The beneficial results are not confined to river cities, but are 
general in their operation. The wheat of Canada and Argentina will seek the same 
market as the wheat of Kansas and the wheat of Oklahoma. It is a contest of markets, 
and in this contest the trump card is “Preparedness.” We must command the 
world’s trade, not only by the superiority of our products, but by the cheapness and 
facilities of getting them to market. 


Section 11. 

ACTUAL RIVER TRAFFIC NOT THE MEASURE OF SAVING IN FREIGHT CHARGES. 

“The Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co., the only through line on the river 
operating between Kansas City and St. Louis, charges 80 per cent of the railroad freight 
rates. Assuming this to be the relation between the rail and water rates for the entire 
traffic, the saving to shippers by the use of the river in 1913 was about $10,000. It is 
evident that this saving is entirely inadequate to warrant the serious consideration of 
an expenditure by the Government of $1,100,000 per year for interest and main¬ 
tenance.” 

It is not the actual saving to shippers upon the small amount of Missouri River 
commerce in the year 1913 which can be taken as a test of the continuation of the 
present improvement project. Any comprehensive movement of river traffic will 
unquestionably have an influence upon the rates of the rail carriers, and any reduc¬ 
tions made in the rail rates would, of course, extend to 100 per cent of the traffic. 
Prior to the opening of the Panama Canal the movement westbound via the sea was 
confined wholly to traffic originating in Atlantic seaboard territory designated as 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 61 


group A in the railroad tariffs, yet the influence of the rates from that group bore 
directly upon all of the traffic originating in Buffalo-Pittsburgh territory and west to 
the Rocky Mountains, the rates being blanketed trom all territory east of the Rocky 
Mountains upon business to the Pacific coast. Prior to the opening of the canal the 
rail carriers obtained a little less than one-third of the tonnage from group A territory, 
but their rates upon this comparatively small tonnage, competitive with the sea 
routes, set the maximum rates for the entire rail tonnage originating east of the Rocky 
Mountains. All of this tonnage west of Buffalo and Pittsburgh was entirely outside of 
the zone of sea competition. (Carriers’ Brief, p. 23, I. C. C. Fourth Section Appli¬ 
cations 205, 305, et al., 32 I. C. C. 611.) So, also, the reduced rates as already made 
and proposed in Exhibits 45 and 46 from New York territory (group A) to Pacific 
coast terminals by the rail carriers in competition with water lines since the Panama 
Canal was opened apply equally to practically all of the rail tonnage originating at 
and east of the Rocky Mountains. 

Rates between the Missouri River and territory east of the Illinois-Indiana State 
line are the sum of the separate rates to and from Mississippi River. Rates between 
points west, including the intermountain region, and southwest of the Missouri River 
and territory east of the Illinois-Indiana State line are less than the sums of the rates 
to and from the Missouri River, but break or base upon St. Louis. An important 
exception is the rates on farm products to the east and southeast from Kansas and 
southern Nebraska, which make on Kansas City combination. A relationship has 
been established by the Interstate Commerce Commission (State of Kansas case, 27 
I. C. C., 673) in the rates from Mississippi River and Chicago to Kansas points and 
the Missouri River. Hence the Missouri River is the natural transportation link in 
the predominant east-and-west commerce of the country and occupies a peculiar 
geographic advantage in traversing the precise territory where the rates break. 

While special conditions resulting from competitive forces have been recognized 
by the Interstate Commerce Commission as justifying lower rates than might other¬ 
wise be reasonable in special instances, nevertheless it is well settled that the act to 
regulate commerce still imposes that in meeting these conditions, railroads may not 
discriminate unduly as between competitive and noncompetitive points; no undue 
disparity of rates may be operated. 

“It is well established that water competition at a given point may render the 
circumstances substantially dissimilar and justify a discrimination against points 
where such competition is not controlling. It is to be observed, however, that such 
dissimilarity of circumstances does not relieve the carrier altogether from the restraint 
of the third section.” (Planters Gin & Compress Co. v. Y. & M. V. R. R. Co., 16 
I. C. C., 131-133.) 

“If, therefore, water competition at a given point compels a carrier to discriminate 
in rates against a point not so favorably situated, the amount of the discrimination must 
not he greater than the dissimilarity of circumstances demand .” (Italics ours.) 

(Martin v. L. & N. R. R. Co., 9 I. C. C., 581. 

See also Texarkana Freight Bureau v. St. L., I. M. & S. Ry. Co. 28 I. 0. C., 569.) 

However, sight should not be lost just here of the radical reductions which have been 
made in the intermountain territory rates by the Interstate Commerce Commission 
in recent years in the relationship of those rates to the coast-point rates and of the par¬ 
ticular attention paid by the commission to the intermountain country in the most 
recent fourth-section cases involving rail rates to the coast. And so we insist that 
any lower rates resulting from a thorough-going use of the river between only Kansas 
City aod St. Louis will not be limited to the purely local commerce, but must neces¬ 
sarily be reflected in rates to and from the great producing and consuming contiguous 
territory. 

The complete Missouri River improvement project may not be gauged as to benefits 
in lower transportation charges to the shipping and consuming public solely and alone 
with reference to the saving upon the commerce transported on the river, much as 
it may grow to be. The consideration must extend to and embrace the resultant 
lower charges upon 100 per cent of the traffic available to effective river transportation 
whether carried by river or rail, and furthermore, must include some regard for the 
saving upon all such traffic coming from and going to the inland territory west and 
southwest of the Missouri River under the relatively reasonable and nondiscriminatory 
adjustment of rates which the Interstate Commerce Commission has said shall apply 
as between the water-competitive points and contiguous nonwater-competitive 

territory. . . ... 

That materially lower rates via rail and consequent saving to the shipping public 
in transportation charges upon an immense traffic will inevitably follow the compre¬ 
hensive use of the fully improved Missouri River, we point to the results in the Pacific 
coast rail rates since the opening of the Panama Canal. 


62 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Growing evidence that Missouri River navigation will soon effect lower freight charges .— 
It may be further emphasized that the $10,000 saving in freight rates m 1913 is figured 
only on the traffic actually moving by river and leaves out of consideration the probable 
effect upon competitive rail rates. 

The district officer states that the water rates are 20 per cent of the railroad freight 
rates and assumes this to be the relation between rail and water rates for the entire 
traffic. By the words “entire traffic,” however, he seems to mean the freight moving 
by river in 1913 on the partially improved stream and does not extend the principle 
to what is really the entire traffic, to wit, the total tonnage now carried by rail and 
river, but which could move by river in case rates and conditions were inviting. If 
the river is once established as a permanent channel of traffic so that the railroads 
must reckon with it, not as a mere experiment to be abandoned at any moment, but 
as a permanent factor in the transportation business in the Missouri Valley, the rates 
on all traffic moving through the Kansas City gateway will be affected by the reduc¬ 
tion in freight rates. It is only a question of the improvement in the river progressing 
to the proper point and the growing use of the river based thereon to bring about this 
result. 

As to whether the river traffic had in 1913, or has now, reached a point where its 
influence can be felt in competitive rail rates, there is a wide difference of opinion 
between the shippers on the one hand and the railroads on the other. The shippers 
believe that, viewed from the standpoint of experience in the practical effect of water 
competition on the Great Lakes with the rail haul from Chicago to New York, a very 
substantial reduction of rates can be made between Kansas City and St. Louis. This 
will follow the increase in the volume of high-grade tonnage carried by river. The 
critical period is now approaching, and at this crisis it is seriously proposed to abandon 
the improvement of the river, put the boat lines out of business, visit with discourage¬ 
ment and loss those who have invested their labor and capital in building up river 
traffic, and free the railroads from competition. 

On the other hand, the railroads contend that the river traffic has already had and 
now has a very potent effect on rail rates; that the rates are now too low and that, with 
the elimination of water competition these rates will be promptly and substantially 
raise*!. 

Both parties regard the presence or absence of water competition an important 
factor in the rate situation. We call attention to some statements and admissions 
of railroad men given in testimony before the Interstate Commerce Commission. 
These show that not only were the railroads watching the boats very closely, but 
actually kept track of the movement of every boat and the cargo it contained. 

The railroads’ expressed views upon and evident if not expressed fears of Missouri 
River navigation is strongly confirmatory of the wisdom of this board’s previous 
recommendations of permanent improvement, and as a cogent reason for the early 
completion of the present project. 

“Abstract of testimony relied upon by the respondent railroads in I. C. C. dockets Nos. 

6119 et al. 

“The rates from the Gulf to Kansas City and other Missouri River points are greatly 

depressed. 

“J. L. Sheppard, for respondents, testified as follows: 

“I am assistant general freight agent of Illinois Central Railroad Co. and Yazoo & 
Mississippi Valley Railroad Co., headquarters at Memphis, Tenn. Have been with 
those roads for 18 years and am familiar with rate adjustment as affecting those two 
companies. While we serve neither Kansas City nor territory west thereof, we do 
have through routes and rates practically to all points in Kansas, the traffic being 
turned over to the Frisco, Rock Island, or Missouri Pacific at Memphis, or to such 
lines as the Burlington and Wabash at East St. Louis. I am referring to traffic from 
New Orleans. (Rec., 366-368.) 

“The rates between New Orleans and Kansas City are not normal rates, but are 
depressed by water competition on the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers. (Rec., 370.) 

“The Illinois Central and Y. & M. V., in connection with their applications for 
relief under section 4 of the act, have advised the commission fully with respect to 
the conditions surrounding the handling of traffic from St. Louis, Memphis, and other 
Mississippi River points to New Orleans. The lines which operate from Missouri 
River points, including Kansas City, also have explained to the commission the effect 
of water competitive conditions which cause the present rate adjustment from those 
points. And what has been said to the commission with respect to the southbound 
rates applies also to the northbound rates. (Rec., 370.) 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 63 


“At this time there are water transportation companies offering to transport the 
commodities involved in these cases from New Orleans to Kansas City via the 
Mississippi and Missouri Rivers. I refer to the Atlas Transportation Co. and the 
Missouri River Navigation Co., both of which are water carriers. I have copy of their 
tariff, effective July 23, 1914, Atlas Transportation No. G. F. O. 19, K. C. Mo. R. N. 
Co., G. F. 0. No. 2, which names through rates between New Orleans and Kansas City. 
This tariff shows rate on denatured alcohol of 26.4 cents as against the rail rate of 33 
cents; coffee, 28 cents via water as against 35 cents via rail; molasses, 24 cents via water 
as against 30 cents via rail; sugar, 25.6 cents via water as against 32 cents via rail; and 
other rates are shown in this tariff. 

“On the title page of tariff just referred to it is shown that marine insurance is 
included. (Rec., 372.) 

“There has been a movement of traffic under the water tariff referred to from New 
Orleans to Kansas City. During the last 90 days these boat lines transported 400 
barrels of molasses and 250 sacks of coffee between those points; also sugar and miscel¬ 
laneous freight, the latter amounting to about three carloads. (Rec., 373.) 

“But for the water route from New Orleans to Kansas City the rail rates on the 
commodities complained of would be a great deal higher than they are at present. 
If the present rates to Kansas City should be raised to a reasonable basis, thus ignoring 
the river navigation, it is my opinion that the same conditions would obtain as existed 
prior to the present low rail rates. The traffic would be handled direct between New 
Orleans and Missouri River points by boats or barges, or by boats or barges to St. Louis 
and thence via rail to destination; and this would'mean that the initial lines at New 
Orleans would be deprived of handling this traffic. My best judgment is that an 
increase of the rail rates to Missouri River would divert the traffic to the water routes. 
(Rec., 374.) 

“Referring to sugar, there is competition between New Orleans and New York in 
the marketing of sugar in Kansas City. This fact was stated yesterday by Mr. Wood, 
a witness for complainants. The low rates from New Orleans were compelled by 
competition with boats and barges on the Mississippi River to St. Louis and thence 
via rail to Kansas City. It was clearly shown in Lehman-Higginson Grocer Co. v. 
A. T. & S. F. Ry. Co. et al., 10 I. C. C-., Rep., 460, that sugar is actually transported 
by water from New Orleans to St. Louis and thence via rail to Kansas City, and that 
this competition fixes the low rates to Kansas City. The Mississippi River controls 
the rate from New Orleans to St. Louis, and establishes a differential, New Orleans 
under New York City, which the New York shipper has to equalize when marketing 
his products in this territory. (Rec., 376.) 

“The tariff showing rates via the water route from New Orleans to Kansas City was 
received in evidence, and marked ‘Defendants’ Exhibit 1, Witness Sheppard.’ The 
pencil figures shown thereon indicate the rail rates. This tariff also names class rates 
from New Orleans to Kansas City. (Rec., 380.) 

“The adjustment on coffee is similar to that on sugar. The competitive conditions 
between New York and New Orleans and the water routes from New Orleans to 
Kansas City, fix a differential of 4 cents from New Orleans under the rail and lake rate 
from New York to Kansas City. (Rec., 380.) 

“The water tariff mentioned by me applies to Kansas City and not Omaha. But 
there is water competition from New Orleans to Omaha, the river being navigable 
between those points. While I have no knowledge of a boat line to Omaha, the river 
nevertheless is navigable. (Rec., 406.) 

“B. F. E. Marsh (of the Santa Fe), for respondents, testified as follows: 

“As to the water influence on sugar rates from New Orleans to St. Louis, and 
departures from the fourth section in that regard, I call attention to the recent decision 
of the commission entitled Fourth Section Applications Nos. 349, 675, 677, 1766, and 
8835, decided July 21, 1913, and published on page 461 of the Traffic World of August 
29, 1914. In that case the commission investigated the rates on sugar from New 
Orleans to Kansas City and points in Kansas with respect to departures from section 4 
of the act. Among other things the commission said: 

“ ‘The rates to Cairo, Ill., St. Louis and Hannibal, Mo., and Quincy, Ill., have 
been induced by competition on the Mississippi River. * * * The rate to Helena, 

Ark., and Memphis, Tenn., is 12 cents and to Cairo, as stated, is 17 cents. The 
rates to these Mississippi River points have been strongly influenced by competition 
on the Mississippi River. The rate to Memphis is 12 cents and to St. Louis 17 cents, 
and these rates are materially less than to intermediate points, the justification of 
this practice being water competition on the Mississippi River. * * * In our 
opinion these carriers should be authorized to continue lower rates to these Mississippi 
River points than to intermediate points, provided the rate to intermediate points 
south of Memphis does not exceed 24 cents.’ (Rec., 428.) 


64 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 


“The Santa Fe receives a periodical report about once a week showing the ton¬ 
nage handled to and from Kansas City by the Kansas City Missouri River Navigation 
Co. via the Missouri River. These reports would include traffic moving via St. Louis 
to and from New Orleans. I have with me the last three reports, dated September 11, 
September 25, and October 30, 1914, which are herewith filed in evidence as De¬ 
fendants’ Exhibit No. 11, Witness Marsh.” (Rec., 452-456.) 

Witness Sheppard testified that during the period of 90 days preceding the hearing 
400 barrels of molasses and 250 sacks of sugar had moved via water from New Orleans 
to Kansas City, in addition to miscellaneous freight, the latter amounting to about 
3 carloads. Other evidence along the same line was offered by Witness Marsh in the 
form of a periodical report received by the Santa Fe, showing tonnage handled to and 
from Kansas City by the Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. These reports 
were dated September 11, September 25, and October 30, 1914, and for convenience 
are reproduced below: 

Marsh Exhibit 11. 

[Extracts from traffic reports of General Agent Roe, of Kansas City, to General Freight Agent Koontz.J 
Report of September 11, 1914. 

“Belt Line Warehouse Co. No. 1, 45 tons whisky from S. J. Greenbaum, seventh 
district, Kentucky. 

“McPike Drug Co., 38 tons bottles, Obear Nester, St. Louis. 

“Faeth Iron Co., 21 tons wagon wood, origin unknown. 

“J. W. Jenkins Sons Music Co., 19 tons Victrolas, Victor Talking Machine Co., 
Camden, N. J. 

“ J. W. Jenkins Sons, 11 tons pianos, Steinway & Sons, New York. 

“J. W. Jenkins Sons, 12 tons pianos, Vose & Sons, Boston. 

“Jones Store Co., 8 tons dry goods, origin unknown. 

“Emery, Bird, Thayer Dry Goods Co., 9 tons dry goods, origin unknown. 

“Montgomery Ward Co., 11 tons dry goods, Durham Hosiery Mills, Durham, N. C. 

“Montgomery Ward & Co., 13 tons cotton bats, origin unknown 

“Townley Metal & Hardware Co., 6 tons tin tubs, Standard Stamping Co., St. 
Louis, Mo. 

“Smith, McCord, Townsend Dry Goods Co,, 14 tons dry goods, E. M. Townsend Co., 
New York. 

“Smith, McCord, Townsend Dry Goods Co., 7 tons dry goods, Towner & Mayer, 
Norristown, Pa. 

“Smith, McCord, Townsend Dry Goods Co., 9 tons dry goods, Lawrence & Co., 
Boston, Mass. 

“Smith, McCord, Townsend Dry Goods Co., 5 tons cotton bats, J. Broadbent & 
Sons, Unionville, Conn. 

“Burnham, Munger, Root Dry Goods Co., 8 tons dry goods, Alder Underwear & 
Hosiery Manufacturing Co., Cincinnati, Ohio. 

“Burnham, Munger, Root Dry Goods Co., 7 tons, McGarvey & Co., Baltimore. 

“Burnham, Munger, Root Dry Goods Co., 11 tons cotton flannels, Amory Browne 
Co., New York. 

“Burnham, Munger, Root Dry Goods Co., 5 tons dry goods, origin unknown. 

“Maxwell, McClure, Fitts Dry Goods Co., 8 tons dry goods, High Rock Knitting Co 
Philmont, N. J. 

“The steamer A. M. Scott, towing the barge Gamma, sailed for St. Louis 8 a. m. 
September 8, loaded with one car cement for a river town, and it is reported will pick 
up grain shipment at way landing for St. Louis. 

“Steamer Advance, towing the barge Beta, arrived at Kansas City 7.45 a. m. Septem¬ 
ber 3, contained 246 tons of merchandise for the following firms: 

“Gate City Transfer Co., 21 tons bottles, Marion Flint Glass Co., Marion, Ind. 

“Kansas City Breweries Co., 23 tons corks and seals, Crown Cork & Seal Co., Balti¬ 
more, Md. 

“Bemis Bro. Bag Co., 24 tons bags, Bemis Bag Co., St. Louis. 

“Ridenour Baker Grocery Co., 25 tons sulphur, Hygienic Chemical Co., New York. 

“Faeth Iron Co., 23 tons wagon wood, origin unknown. 

“American Sash & Door Co., 21 tons building felt, origin unknown. 

“Barteldes Seed Co., 38 tons seed, origin unknown. 

“Belt Line Warehouse Co. No. 1, 20 tons whisky, S. J. Greenbaum, seventh district, 
Kentucky. 

“Montgomery Ward & Co., 9 tons dry goods, Durham Hosiery Mills, Durham, N. C. 

“Emery Bird Thayer Dry Goods Co., 7 tons dry goods, origin unknown. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 65 


“Webb Freyschlag Merchandise Co., 6 tons dry goods, origin unknown. 

“J. W. Jenkins Sons Music Co., 12 tons Victrolas, Victor Talking Machine Co., 
Camden, N. J. 

“Smith, McCord, Townsend Gry Goods Co., 10 tons dry goods, Piqua Hosiery Co., 
Piqua, Ohio. 

“Smith, McCord, Townsend Dry Goods Co., 7 tons dry goods, Adler Hosiery & 
Underwear Co., Cincinnati, Ohio. 

“The steamer Advance towing the barge Beta sailed for St. Louis 3.30 p. m., Sep¬ 
tember 5, loaded with two cars flour and 3,500 pounds merchandise for river towns. 

“Steamer Chester is still here being held for repairs on boiler.” 

REPORT SEPTEMBER 25, 1914. 

“Kansas City-Missouri River Navigation Co.: 

“The steamer Advance towing the barge Delta which arrived here 7 p. m. September 
16 contained the following merchandise for Kansas City firms: 

“Campbell Glass & Paint Co., 39 tons glass, from American Window Glass Co., 
Pittsburgh, Pa. 

“Townley Metal & Hardware Co., 31 tons nails, American Steel & Wire Co., Pitts¬ 
burgh, Pa. 

“Wm. Volker & Co., 28 tons linoleum, Armstrong & Co., Philadelphia, Pa. 

“J. W. Jenkins Sons Music Co., 12 tons pianos, Steinway & Sons, New York, N. Y. 

“Richards & Conover Hardware Co., 27 tons horseshoes, Jas. A. Burden Horse Shoe 
Co., Troy, N. Y. 

“McPike Drug Co., 8 tons bottles, origin unknown. 

“Smith, McCord, Townsend Dry Goods Co., 15 tons dry goods, E. M. Townsend & 
Co., New York. 

“Smith, McCord, Townsend Dry Goods Co., 8 tons dry goods, Towner & Mayer, 
Norristown, Pa. 

“Smith, McCord, Townsend Dry Goods Co., 19 tons, Lawrence & Co., Boston, Mass. 

“Burnham Munger Root Dry Goods Co., 12 tons drygoods, Adler Underwear & Hosi¬ 
ery Co., Cincinnati, Ohio; 16 tons cotton flannels, Amory-Brown & Co., New York. 

“Webb Freyschlag Merchandise Co., 3 tons dry goods, origin unknown. 

“Steamer Advance towing the barge Delta sailed for St. Louis at 2 p. m. September 
19, loaded with one car flour and 5,000 pounds merchandise for river towns. 

“The A. M Scott which arrived St. Louis on September 9 is still there for repairs, 
reported will be in running condition first of the week.” 

REPORT OCTOBER 30, 1914. 

“Kansas City-Missouri River Navigation Co.: 

“The steamer Advance towing the barge Delta sailed from St. Louis October 20 and 
reached Kansas City October 27 with 197 tons miscellaneous merchandise for the 
following concerns: 

“Wm. Volker & Co., 40 tons door mats, from Panslo Mills, Trenton, N. J.; 50 tons 
steel rods, origin unknown. 

“J. W. Jenkins Sons Music Co., 12 tons pianos, Steinway & Sons, New York, N. Y.; 
10 tons pianos, Vose & Sons, Boston. 

“Townley Metal Co., 25 tons nails, American Steel & Wire Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. 

“Richards & Conover, 28 tons nails, American Steel & Wire Co., Pittsburgh, Pa. 

“Webb Freyschlag Merchandise Co., 3 tons dry goods, origin unknown. 

“Burnham Munger Root Dry Goods Co., 10 tons dry goods, E. M. Townsend & Co., 
New York; 7 tons dry goods, Towner & Mayer, Norristown, Pa. 

“Smith, McCord, Townsend Dry Goods Co., 12 tons dry goods, Lawrence & Co., 
Boston, Mass. 

“The steamer Advance towing the barge Epsilon sailed for St. Louis October 29 
with three cars flour and one car of meal for St. Louis, also about 3,000 pounds of mer¬ 
chandise for river towns.” 

“C. C. P. Rausch (ot the Missouri Pacific) for respondents, testified as follows: 

“Referring to the depressed rates from New Orleans to Kansas City I desire to 
offer my exhibit No. 3, consisting of 35 pages. This exhibit affords a brief history 
of water transportation on the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, taken from decisions 
of this commission, the Encyclopaedia Britannica, reports prepared by boards of 
trade at St. Louis, Memphis, and New Orleans, and Government data as indicated 
in the exhibit. (Rec. adjourned hearing, 188.) 

H. Doc. 463, 64-1-5 


66 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


“From my knowledge of the situation and because of the proximity of our rail¬ 
roads to all Mississippi and Missouri River points, I wish to emphasize the fact that 
the competition via these rivers has long had the effect of depressing the rates. Had 
it not been for those rivers there is no question at all but that the rates to Memphis, 
St. Louis, Kansas City, and Omaha would be upon a higher plane. (Rec. adjourned 
hearing, 200.) . . . 

“I have been on at least one or two of the boats operating on the Missouri River, 
and have received various reports of their tonnage. The consists were very volumi¬ 
nous and covered a vast quantity of commodities. I have passed along the Missouri 
River at least a dozen times in the last two or three years, and I never passed in the 
daytime without seeing one of those boats. The boats ply regularly between St. 
Louis and Kansas City. (Rec. adjourned hearing, 245.) 

“Rausch’s Exhibit No. 27. 

“Steamer Scott towing barge Gamma from St. Louis arrived Kansas City September 
5, 1914: 


Commodity. 

Tons. 

Commodity. 

Tons. 

TVTp roll jvn c\ i so 

267 

Tin tubs. 

6 


45 

Dry goods. 

14 

Bottles 

32 

Do. 

7 

Wagon wood. 

31 

Do. 

9 

Victrolas 

19 

Do. 

5 

Pian ns . 

12 

Do. 

8 

T)rv pnods 

8 

Do. 

7 


9 

Do. 

11 

Do 

11 

Do. 

5 

Cotton bats 

13 

Do. 

8 





“Rausch’s Exhibit No. 28. 

“Steamer Advance towing barge Beta from St. Louis arrived Kansas City September 
3, 1914: 


Commodity. 

Tons. 

Commodity. 

Tons. 

Merchandise. 

246 

Whisky. 

20 

Bottles. 

21 


9 

Corks and seals. 

23 

Drygoods. 

7 

Bags. 

24 

Do. 

6 

Sulphur. 

25 

Victrolas. 

12 

Wagon wood. 

23 

Dry goods. 

10 

Building felt. 

21 

Do. 

7 

Seed. 

38 




“The tariffs show lower rates from New Orleans to Omaha than from New Orleans 
to these Kansas points. To Omaha the rates are controlled by the carriers east of 
the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, which do not serve interior Kansas. It goes 
very largely to a matter of rail competition and keeping Kansas City and Omaha 
upon a parity from St. Paul, Chicago, Peoria, and the Mississippi River. On all 
Central Freight Association and eastern trunk line traffic the rates are practically 
on a parity to Omaha and Kansas City, and coming from New Orleans the Illinois 
Central serves both Omaha and Sioux City, but has no interest in the lower Missouri 
River points. Then there are other lines serving Omaha from the East which con¬ 
nect with lines from New Orleans, such as the Chicago & North Western, and those 
lines see fit to keep Omaha on a relative basis with Kansas City. (Rec. adjourned 
hearing, 293.) 

“Omaha is on the Missouri River, and there is at least potential water competition. 
I know that a boat left Kansas City about two weeks ago for Omaha, and it was very 
heavily laden. In the Concordia case I read into the record what the tonnage con¬ 
sisted of. (Rec. adjourned hearing, 295.) 

“The rates to Sioux City are similar to those to Kansas City and Omaha, being 
constructed on a differential basis. The Illinois Central dominates that situation, 
aiming to keep Sioux City on a parity from New Orleans with the other Missouri River 
points. (Rec. adjourned hearing, 296.) 
























































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 67 


“From Chicago, St. Louis, etc., the rates to Kansas City and Omaha have been 
the same for years. From Chicago the scale is 80 cents, first class, and from St. Louis 
60 cents, first class. All those lines compete for the traffic and naturally have the 
same rates. (Rec. adjourned hearing, 303.) 

“What I have said regarding the sugar situation from New Orleans to St. Louis, 
Kansas City, and points in Kansas applies with equal force to the rates on coffee. 
There is the competition via river and intense competition from the Atlantic sea¬ 
board. (Rec., 428.) 

“It has been shown that the rates from New Orleans to Memphis, St. Louis, and 
Kansas City are controlled by water competition, and that the rates to eastern Kansas 
points are made with relation thereto, grading higher in a westerly direction. It 
follows, therefore, that with those lines extending in a westerly and northwesterly 
direction the rates grade naturally; but with a line like the Santa Fe entering Kansas 
from the south this can not be the case. Its line extending in a northerly and easterly 
direction necessarily must pass through higher into lower rated territory, and it there¬ 
fore should be granted relief from section 4. (Rec. adjourned hearing, 59.) 

“Rausch Exhibit 26. 


“From stenographer’s minutes before the Interstate Commerce Commission. Docket 
No. I. & S. 545, in matter of investigation and suspension of trap or ferry car service 
charges at Kansas City, Mo., March 22, 1915 (p. 751): 

“James I. Sweeney, traffic manager, Smith, McCord, Townsend Dry Goods Co., 
Kansas City, Mo., was called as a witness and, having been duly sworn, testified as 
follows (p. 763): 

“Mr. Sweeney. We handled last year inbound cars made up at points of origin 
other than Kansas City, 382. 

“Mr. Burchmore. Are the conditions with you with respect to this inbound 
traffic from the east and southeast substantially similar to those described by the 
other gentlemen? (p. 764). 

“Mr. Sweeney. Excepting we seem to have used—naturally, we did use some 
fewer cars on account of the fact that almost 200 of our cars moved on the Missouri 
River (p. 772). 

“Mr. Wright. I understand that those 200 cars, or 2,000,000 pounds, moved via 
the Missouri River into Kansas City last year? 

“Mr. Sweeney. Yes, sir. 

“Mr. Wright. Can you state as to whether or not any other concerns are receiving 
freight by boat? . , n , _ . 

“Mr. Sweeney. I can state that our business was possibly 10 per cent of their 
volume. Maybe a little more. I don’t think any more. 

“Mr. Wright. You received 25 per cent of your business by boat? (p. 773). 

“Mr Sweeney. Approximately. 

“Rausch Exhibit 25. 

“Interstate Commerce Commission. No. 7002. Kansas City Missouri River Navi¬ 
gation Co. v. Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co., et al. Decided May 11, 1915 (34 
ICC 67) 

“ The’navigation company began operations in 1911, starting with one boat, since 
which time it has materially increased its equipment and now has one steam packet 
and passenger steamer, one motor boat, two towboats, and eight steel-hull cargo barges. 
The amount of capital stock issued is $1,202,000, of which $2,000 is common, divided 
amon" the directors, and $1,200,000 preferred, divided among more than 4,000 share- 
holders who are citizens of Kansas City, Mo.-Kans Of the preferred stock all of 
which appears to have been subscribed, there remained as of July 1,1914, $208,016.25 
in unpaid subscriptions, the paid-in subscriptions amounting to $991,983.76. A state¬ 
ment of complainant’s assets and liabilities as of the same date shows, among other 
things an investment in “floating equipment” of $427,291.44; terminals at East St. 
Loufs,’$31,012.45; and a cash fund of $380,117.70. 

“The navigation company has a modern ironclad terminal warehouse at East St. 
Louis fully equipped with improved and economical freight-handling devices, plat¬ 
forms and other facilities. At Gasconade, Mo., it owns a machine shop and shipyard, 
with 30 acres of ground. At Kansas City it also has on leased ground an office and a 
machine shop fully equipped for the repair of vessels. The terminal at Kansas City 
consists of a modern warehouse owned by the municipality and leased to the naviga¬ 
tion company upon a tonnage basis. cut 

“The navigation company engages in the transportation of all classes of freight be¬ 
tween Kansas City and East St. Louis and intermediate points. 


68 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


‘ ‘ In this case cognizance was taken by the commission of the Kansas City Missouri River 
Navigation Co. as a water line between Kansas City and St. Louis. Consideration was 
given to the financial status of this line, its equipment and facilities, terminals, etc., and 
it was held that the rail lines should be required to establish in connection with this water 
route joint rates on grain products destined to Norfolk and Newport News, Va.,for export. 
(Italics ours.) 

“[Extract from the Annual Report of the Chief of Engineers to the Secretary of War. War Department, 

office of the Chief of Engineers, Washington, Oct. 5, 1914. Improvement of rivers and harbors in the 

Kansas City, Mo., district.] 

Page 956: “The Missouri has been navigated by steamboats since 1819, when the 
first boat went to Council Bluffs. The first boat went to the mouth of the Yellowstone 
in 1832, and to the head of navigation, Fort Benton, Mont., in 1859. 

Page 958: “The effect of the improvement has been to equalize and keep down 
freight rates, the actual river rates being about 80 per cent of the railroad rates. 

“The river formerly carried an active commerce, which was afterwards diverted to 
other routes. This commerce now shows signs of reviving. 

‘ ‘ Through commerce from Kansas City to the mouth was renewed during the season 
of 1908. 

“Now taking the situation on the Missouri River at the present time, the Kansas 
City Missouri River Navigation Co. was organized a little more than two years ago by 
the business interests of Kansas City. A fund of upward of $1,000,000 was subscribed 
by the citizens of Kansas City. The Navigation Co. was incorporated under the State 
laws of Missouri with the capital of $1,200,000. Mr. Walter S. Dickey, of the Dickey 
Clay Manufacturing Co., was elected president; Mr. Arch Mackey was elected secre¬ 
tary. We understand the company have purchased three towboats, known as the 
Chester., Scott, and Advance; also three steel barges known as the Endeavor, Alpha, and 
Beta, with a capacity of 1,500 tons. On the basis of an average car, say, 40,000 pounds 
or 20 tons, this would be equivalent to 60 to 75 freight cars. The Delaware is 700 tons 
capacity, or approximately 35 cars; the Handy is 300 tons capacity, or about 15 cars, 
making a total average of about 130 cars. 

“The Beta reached Kansas City a couple of weeks ago in tow of the Scott, which re¬ 
turned to St. Louis and will arrive in Kansas City about June 11, or 12, that is, about 
this time, towing the barge Endeavor , which we were advised has a cargo larger than 
ever brought into Kansas City heretofore. We also understand this cargo consists very 
largely of high-class merchandise. We endeavored to secure a copy of the tariff of the 
Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co., but were told by their general freight 
agent that they had not as yet issued one, but that their rates generally were and would 
be about 80 per cent of all the rail rates. 

“Mr. Hickey. Between what points are they transporting property? 

“Mr. Rausch. Between Kansas City and St. Louis. The present rates via the 
rail lines are 60, 45, 35, 27, 22. Eighty per cent of these rates would be 48, 36, 28, 21.6, 
17.6, respectively. 

“In investigating this matter I find that the Kansas City Missouri Navigation Co. 
leased the Wiggins Ferry Incline No. 2, I think is the number, on the east side of the 
river at St. Louis; in other words, on the East St. Louis side, about June a year ago, 
thus affording them ample facilities for the handling of all classes of traffic at East St! 
Louis. 

“Mr. Hickey. What facilities have they at St. Louis? 

“Mr. Rausch. As we understand it, their main facilities will be at East St. Louis. 
The object of that no doubt being to get the traffic from the large lines that entered 
East St. Louis. . Nearly all the lines coming from the east, such as the Pennsylvania, 
Baltimore & Ohio, all of the Chicago lines, the Illinois Central operating in the south! 
the Louisville & Nashville, the Southern Railway, the Mobile & Ohio, have terminals 
at East St. Louis. The west side lines are confined to the Missouri Pacific, Missouri, 
Kansas & Texas, Frisco and Wabash, otherwise there would be a transfer across. 

“Mr. Hickey. That indicates they will depend on the rail lines to furnish their 
traffic. 

“Mr. Rausch. Well, I do not know. No doubt in establishing their fates and 
getting any business from St. Louis proper they will absorb the river transfer from 
St. Louis to the east side. There would be no way they could get it unless they would 
absorb either the ferry or the bridge charges. And in that they would simply be 
following what the rail lines do. The rail lines, of course, in handling any traffic on 
either side of the river must absorb the bridge toll. 

“Examiner Pitt. What bridge charges have you reference to? 

“Mr. Rausch. The bridge toll between St. Louis and East St. Louis, the bridge 
or ferry charges. There are two ferries and there are two bridges, except that the 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 69 


Iron Mountain has its own ferry at Ivory, which is inside of St. Louis, and handled 
to some extent some carload business over that ferry. 

“Examiner Pitt. How would that operate on local traffic? Suppose a merchant 
in St. Louis wanted to ship to Kansas City, how would he ship? 

“Mr. Rausch. If a merchant now wants to ship anything from St. Louis to any 
points in Illinois- 

“Examiner Pitt. Kansas City. 

“Mr. Rausch. Well, I was going to describe it. 

“Examiner Thurtell. East St. Louis. 

“Examiner Pitt. A merchant from St. Louis wants to ship to Kansas City, that is 
where this boat line operates. 

“Mr. Rausch. He would do just like a St. Louis merchant does now when he ships 
to Illinois or Indiana. If it is a box of dry goods he loads it on a dray or rather the 
St. Louis Transfer Co. does, and they take it to East St. Louis for so much, usually 
5 cents per 100 pounds on less-than-carload stuff. If it is going to a point beyond 
100 miles, the rail line handling it from East St. Louis to destination absorbs that 
transfer charge the same as they would absorb the bridge toll or the ferry. They 
treat this wagon transfer the same as the rail or ferry transfer charge. Now a firm 
at St. Louis in handling Missouri River Kansas City business by the river, they would 
load it on this same wagon and they would take it over and deliver it to the head of 
the incline of this transportation company. 

“Examiner Pitt. Do not some of the merchants use their own drays in handling 
this traffic? 

“Mr. Rausch. Yes. There the rate would apply as applicable either from St. 
Louis or East St. Louis, to whichever place it is drayed. 

“Examiner Pitt. They have no place for receiving it in St. Louis, I understand. 

“Mr. Rausch. They have a place on the east side in one of the old warehouses 
there, the river wharf boat. 

“Examiner Pitt. In St. Louis proper? 

“Mr. Rausch. No; on the east side. 

“Examiner Pitt. But I am speaking of St. Louis. Suppose the merchant wanted 
to use his own dray, how could he do it? 

“Mr. Rausch. He could dray it over the Eads Bridge; that is a wagon bridge. 

“Examiner Pitt. Would there be any absorption of the charge? 

“Mr. Rausch. There would not be any absorption in the case of the rail lines in 
that case, because they would only absorb what they collect from the transfer company. 
These companies are mentioned in the switching tariff on file with the Interstate 
Commerce Commission. But this boat company not having its tariffs on file with 
the commission would or would not absorb just according to the amount they could 
collect, and with a difference in the freight rate of 12 or 15 cents per 100 pounds on 
first-class freight possibly the shipper would be willing to dray it over there, or if out 
of a 48-cent rate the boat company wanted to make this absorption they could. Their 
through tariff is not filed with the commission, neither is any of their absorptions.’’ 

Witness Rausch, referring to river transportation to Omaha, mentioned the fact 
that a boat had left Kansas City for Omaha about two weeks preceding the second 
hearing in this case and that it was heavily laden, adding that in the Concordia case 
he had testified as to the articles contained in the cargo. We also call attention to that 
part of Exhibit 3 of this witness, dealing with the history of navigation on the Missouri 
River. There is no doubt that the river is navigable to Omaha and that transportation 
thereon would at once become an important factor were any material advance to be 
made in the rail rates. 

Section 12. 

rate regulation by water competition more effective than commission 

REGULATION. 

“Reduction in rail rates resulting from a possibility of water transportation is not 
a simple subject. There is no question that towns having a water transportation are 
for that reason favored with lower rates than other places having no water transporta¬ 
tion and requiring equal rail haul. It is my understanding that this condition is 
recognized by the Interstate Commerce Commission.” 

This is a correct statement of the effect of actual and potential water competition 
on rail rates. To make the matter more clear we append a table showing the actual 
effect on rates over a long period of years, between Chicago and New York. The rail 
distance is 912 miles. There are three classes of rates in force: First, by rail; second, 
by rail and lake; third, by canal and lake. 


70 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


From a study of these tables, it will be seen that while there is always a differential 
against all-rail rates, the presence of the rail-and-lake rate and the rail-and-canal rate 
has the effect of bringing the all-rail rate down to a point much lower than would be 
the case if there were no actual water competition. As this comparison extends over 
a long period of years, and is not theoretical, but the result of actual experience, we 
may assume with perfect safety that it represents approximately the relation between 
all-rail and water competition, and the slight difference in favor of the all-rail rates 
is the true measure of the special advantage to particular classes of commodities in 
shipping by that means of transportation. 

“This might be true if there were no other method of controlling rail rates, but in 
these days when the railroads claim that they are being regulated too much, there 
appears to be no lack of governmental machinery for controlling them, and it does 
not seem necessary to spend $20,000,000 to bring about a proper rail rate between 
Kansas City and St. Louis.” 

Power of Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate rates is not arbitrary. —But it 
may be said further in answer to the statement of the district officer that the power 
of the Interstate Commerce Commission to regulate rates and in fact the power of the 
Government itself is not arbitrary. Such regulation must be based upon certain 
established principles and the known factors governing the movement of particular 
traffic. The district officer’s report seems to assume that it is possible for the Inter¬ 
state Commerce Commission to fix arbitrarily the rates between Kansas City and 
St. Louis. It can permit the carrier to adjust its rates, as it has done in many cases, 
to meet actual and potential water competition, but if such competition by water is 
destroyed as contemplated in the report of the district officer, the most important 
element of rate regulation has been eliminated. It can not be said, therefore, that 
if the improvement of the river be abandoned the Interstate Commerce Commission 
has ample machinery to establish a proper rate between Kansas City and St. Louis. 
The commission can not even compel the rail carrier to lower its rate to meet a water 
rate. It must leave this to the natural pressure of competition. 

The assumption here that the governmental control of rail rates is a guaranty 
against excessive rates between Kansas City and St. Louis seems to contemplate that 
the Interstate Commerce Commission is clothed with power to prescribe rates as low 
as would result from the forces of competition, water or otherwise. Such assumption is 
unwarranted. Such theory is at once refuted by the existence of the proviso in the 
long and short haul clause pf the fourth section of the act to regulate commerce and the 
interpretation and administration thereof by the commission. Congress has always 
recognized that competitive conditions, whan properly shown to exist, should justify 
relief from the rigid application of the long and short haul rule. Thus rates to in¬ 
termediate territory are higher than to the Pacific coast and in numerous instances 
elsewhere throughout the country, and being so, are plainly not in violation of the 
statute. If the rates made by the water carriers to the more distant points, and met by 
the rail lines, were entirely reasonable and fully compensatory for the service per¬ 
formed, transportation conditions being similar, then the commission would have 
no alternative but to require the establishment of those rates as a maximum to inter¬ 
mediate rail territory. Conversely, the theory advanced by the district officer seem¬ 
ingly is that the Interstate Commerce Commission, finding the Missouri River flowing 
between Kansas City and St. Louis, may compute the potentialities thereof and require 
the railroads to operate rates in relation to what might be applied upon a substantial 
and constantly moving river commerce, without its actual existence. Congress has 
conferred no such power upon the commission, but it is an established canon of com¬ 
mission regulation of common carriers that competition is an element of controlling 
force in distinguishing transportation charges. Competition, however, when offered 
as justifying materially lower rates, must be substantial and even more than potential 
to be approved of, much less prescribed. (LaSalle Paper Co. v. M. C. Ry. 16 I. C. C. 
149; Chicago Lumber & Coal Co. -u. T. S. Ry., 16 I. C. C., 323.) 

“Since the act authorizes carriers to make lower rates to points where competitive 
conditions obtain, many shippers concluded that the act gave them the right to 
demand lower rates at such points. While the law permits carriers to maintain low 
rates under stress of competition, it does not require them to do so. ” (Beale & Wyman 
Railroad Rate Regulation, second edition, ch. 802; Crews v. R. & D. Ry., 1 I. C. C., 
401; Oregon & Washington Lumber Manufacturers’ Association v. U. P. R. R., 14 
I. C. C., 1.) 

“Whether they will reduce their rates to competitive points or not is a question 
of business policy which each carrier is free to determine for itself.” (Kansas-Iowa 
Brick Rates, 28 I. C. C., 285.) 

“ It follows that while the carrier may take into consideration the competition as to 
producing cases of dissimilar circumstances and conditions, its right to do so is gov¬ 
erned by the following principles: 


Missouri river from Kansas city, mo., to the mouth. 71 

“First, the absolute command of the statute that all rates shall be just and reason¬ 
able and that no undue discrimination be brought about, though, in the nature of 
things, this latter consideration may, in many cases, be involved in the determina¬ 
tion of whether competition was such as created a substantial dissimilarity of con¬ 
dition. 

“Second, that the competition relied upon be not artificial or merely conjectural , 
but material and substantial , and thereby operating on the question of traffic and rate 
making, the right, many event, to be only enjoyed with a due regard to the interest 
of the public and giving full weight to the benefits to be conferred on the place from 
whence the traffic moved as well as those to be derived at the locality to which it is 
to be delivered.” (Italics ours.) (L. & N. R. R. Co. v. Behlmer, 175 U. S., 648.) 

The Interstate Commerce Commission, if it possessed the power to do so, might have 
prescribed as low rates to Spokane as applied to Seattle in the long years of litigation 
surrounding that issue, but it did not do so either in the original cases nor the recent 
fourth section applications of the transcontinental lines presented and decided since 
the canal was opened. (32 I. C. C., 611 and 34 I. C. C., 13.) 

While the water service between the Atlantic and Pacific coast ports, prior to the 
opening of the Panama Canal, furnished an element of competition which the rail¬ 
roads recognized in the making of transcontinental rates and caused a lower level of 
rail charges to Pacific coast terminals than to intermediate points, the reflection 
thereof in the terminal rail rates was nothing like as marked as it exists to-day with 
regular sailings free from the former cumbersome and more expensive rail transship¬ 
ment via the Panama Railroad across the Isthmus, a largely augmented volume of 
water-borne tonnage and radically lower rates. 

Similarly, while the Missouri River has some competitive potentialities without a 
boat upon it and has recently been offered by the railroads as a justifying cause for 
lower rates to and from Missouri River cities than adjacent territory, it remains for 
the railroads to feel the competition of the river as reflected in the rail rates. So far 
from any reductions whatever being made in rail rates between Kansas City and 
eastern points, we point to Exhibit No. 39, showing the history of class rates from 
Chicago to Kansas City, which shows that the rates are materially higher to-day 
than 25 years ago. Said rates are based upon the rates from the Mississippi River. 

We show, in Exhibits 45 and 46, the marked reductions which have occurred in 
the rail rates to the coast and the still greater relative reductions just presented by 
the rail carriers to the commission for application to the coast terminal cities by 
reason of increased competition of the canal route service. This history constitutes 
the determining test of our averment that the Interstate Commerce Commission’s 
power to lower rates of common carriers is in no sense comparable with the free play 
of water competition. The cheaper rail rates to the Pacific coast flowing from the 
opening of the Panama Canal is the complete answer to the district officer’s twelfth 
proposition. 

Congress has entered upon a policy of conserving water competition. —Regardless of 
what the railroads claim as to the wisdom or necessity of governmental regulation, 
such regulation has become a settled policy in this country. Neither can it be said 
that the Government machinery for controlling them has been completely perfected. 
Numerous changes have been made in the interstate commerce law since its first 
passage in 1887, as experience in its practical operation demonstrated a necessity of 
strengthening and broadening that law. Doubtless other amendments will prove 
to be”necessary. This important point must be observed, that Congress in its latest 
amendment (Aug. 24, 1912) vested the commission with power to compel the estab¬ 
lishment of through rates by rail and water and to compel rail carriers to interchange 
freight with water carriers. It further provided against the possibility of driving 
water competition out of existence. 

“Whenever a carrier by railroad shall, in competition with a water route or routes, 
reduce the rates on the carriage of any species of freight to or from competitive points, 
it shall not be permitted to increase such rates unless after hearing by the Interstate 
Commerce Commission, it shall be found that such proposed increase rests upon 
changed conditions other than the elimination of water competition.” (Sec. 4, act 
to regulate commerce, as amended June 18, 1910.) 

Instead of permitting the railroads arbitrarily to lower their rates to a pomt below 
the cost of carriage over a given territory until they have eliminated water competi¬ 
tion, and then to raise them again to make the public eventually pay the loss which 
the railroads have thus voluntarily incurred, the law now provides that if a railroad 
carrier lowers its rate to meet water competition, it can not afterwards raise that rate 
without showing some change of conditions justifying the raise, other than the elimina¬ 
tion of the water competition. It is apparent from these recent acts of Congress that 
the reestablishment of water traffic has been entered upon by Congress as a deliberate, 


72 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


broad, and general policy. The improvement of the rivers for the purpose of naviga¬ 
tion is supplemented by changes in the interstate commerce law protecting the boat 
lines against unfair methods of competition and compelling the articulation of the 
rail and water system for the interchange of traffic for convenience of the public. 
Rail and water carriage can be made to work in harmony and both controlled from 
the standpoint of the public interest. 

Section 18. 

“Over a great part of the distance the river is paralleled with railroads on both 
banks, and there are few localities which have no railroad within easy reach.” 

THE MISSOURI RIVER VALLEY IS A MAIN ARTERY OF COMMERCE. 

Instead of this being an argument against the improvement of the river, it is, in 
two important respects, an argument in favor of improving the river: First, the pres¬ 
ence of the railroad touching the river will under proper regulations compelling the 
articulation of rail and water rates furnish an interchange of business with the river; 
second, the presence of railroads paralleling the river is an indication of the move¬ 
ment of traffic. 

Traffic west of the Mississippi River moves in east and west lines. It seeks the 
Missouri Valley between Kansas City and St. Louis as a natural artery of trade. 
Kansas City was originally Westport Landing; it owes its location as a distributing 
center to the fact that water transportation here reached the nearest point to the West 
and Southwest. In 1821 the Santa Fe trail began at old Franklin in Howard County, 
Mo., and extended to Santa Fe, N. Mex., on Mexican territory. In the same year, 
1821, the first steamboat came up the Missouri River from St. Louis. The Santa 
Fe trail had its eastern terminus at old Franklin for only two seasons, and then it 
was found that steamboats could proceed to Westport Landing, the nearest point to 
the great empire of the Southwest. For the next quarter of a century Westport and 
Independence were the beginning of the Santa Fe trail. The whole growth of the 
Southwest and the entire development of the country from the Mississippi River to 
the Rocky Mountains has followed this same line. Even after railroads took possession 
of the territory and in many cases overbuilt the existing needs for rail lines, every 
pound of surplus freight moving into or out of this great productive region sought 
the river crossings. The future adjustment of transportation rates in general through¬ 
out the West will be based upon river points, and the river is the key to the com¬ 
mercial situation. 

It is true that the Missouri River from St. Louis to Kansas City is paralleled by a 
territory served with a number of railroads which carry a heavy density of traffic to 
and from the Missouri River and beyond to the Pacific coast. We refer to Exhibit 
36, showing certain operating results of a number of typical lines serving the territory 
between the Mississippi River and the Missouri River and beyond. Various other 
exhibits show the growth of traffic of the Missouri River territory and an increasing 
rail rate level during the same period. Collectively, these exhibits point to one 
conclusive fact which sufficiently answers the suggestion of the district officer that 
the Missouri River territory is adequately supplied with transportation facilities 
without river improvement. That fact, assuming that the growth of traffic has been 
no greater between the Missouri River cities and eastern territory than the traffic 
at large upon the systems of these railroads, is that against a constant extension of 
mileage, increase in freight density 1 mile per mile of line, economy in freight-train 
loading, sustained and increased length of distance haul and average receipts per 
ton-mile, these railroads are increasing, so far as they may, the rates upon freight traffic 
in every possible way, both for line haul transportation and terminal services. 

The class rates from the East apply to much of the traffic moving to the Missouri 
River. These class rates are shown by Exhibit 39 to be now materially higher than 
25 years ago. There is an exceedingly large movement of iron and steel from the 
Pittsburgh district, Chicago, etc., all of which takes class rates. Many important 
commodity rates have been and are being canceled and the articles restored to the 
classification. For example, these carriers now have pending before the Interstate 
Commerce Commission tariffs proposing to cancel the commodity rates from Mississippi 
River and Chicago territories on agricultural implements, of which there is an im¬ 
mense movement to the Missouri River, likewise upon furniture, which is a commodity 
also concentrated in large volume at and distributed from Missouri River cities. 
The proposed increase in the rate upon agricultural implements is 2 cents per 100 
pounds, nearly 10 per cent, and upon furniture, 13 cents per 100 pounds, over 40 per 
cent, in carload lots. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 78 

Railroad monopoly of transportation.— The conclusion of the district officer is that 
commercial interests of the Missouri Valley can be better served by rail under the 
sanction of the rates established by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and there¬ 
fore it is not necessary to spend $20,000,000 to provide an additional transportation 
route between Kansas City and St. Louis. 

Commerce is entitled to the fullest development of every practical means of trans¬ 
portation. 

Is railroad monopoly of transportation a good thing? 

Preliminary report of Inland Waterway Commission, page 19: 

“While the decline of navigation in the inland waterways was largely due to the 
natural growth and legitimate competition attending railway extension, it is also 
clear that railway interests have been successfully directed against the normal mainte¬ 
nance and development of water traffic by control of water fronts and terminals, 
by acquisition or control of competing canals and vessels, by discriminating tariffs, 
by rebates, by adverse placement of tracks and structures, and by other means.” 

Ibid., page 383: “It has been suggested that in both Great Britain and the United 
States the railroads have been charged with more than their real part of responsibility 
for preventing development of internal waterways, yet the fact remains that it is in 
those countries which have government ownership of railroads, and where governmental 
policy has protected the developing waterway systems from ruinous competition with 
the railways, that the waterways have been developed to the greatest extent and 
efficiency.’’ 

Ibid., page 385:“Railroad managers had no sympathy with the idea that larger 
transportation facilities were demanded, or that another method would supply cheaper 
transport than their iron highways. Their political influence as well as their vastly 
more important commercial influence was enlisted in antagonism. They believed 
it would be better to spend money in building new railroads or improving old ones 
rather than in waterways. They were determined to prove the correctness of this 
opinion, and they set about doing so by inaugurating a cut-throat competition against 
the waterways under circumstances in which the latter were at a hopeless disadvantage. 

Ibid., page 387: “In short, European experience is that competition between rail¬ 
ways and waterways is useful, desirable, and worthy of being protected by the State.” 

If Germany owned the Missouri River. —Preliminary report of Inland Waterway 
Commission, page 388: 

“European students of transportation wonder that the United States should have 
permitted so one-sided a development of its transportation system. They point out 
that, with perhaps the exception of China, no other country has such a magnificent 
river system as the United States, or so great possibilities of its effective utilization. 
Nowhere else is there so large a proportion of freight which can be moved most ad¬ 
vantageously by water. In another place it has been suggested that if the German 
Empire controlled the world’s supply of a great staple, as the United States controls 
cotton, German economic policy would busy itself to bring about the manufacture 
of a vastly larger proportion of that raw material in Germany. And, similarly, if 
Germany, France, or Austria possessed such a river system as that of the United 
States, with possibilities of being joined to a lake system such as ours, these would 
long ago have been made the basis of a vast and busy transportation system.” 

Are railway facilities adequate f—The recommendation of the district officer that the 
improvement of the Missouri River be abandoned is founded upon the assumption 
that rail facilities are adequate and will remain adequate until “in another generation 
the improvement of the river becomes advisable.” No assumption could be more 
unfounded. 

Preliminary report Inland Waterways Commission, page 19: 

“While the railways of mainland United States have been notably efficient in 
extending and promoting the production and commerce of the country, it is clear that 
at seasons recurring with increasing frequency they are unable to keep pace with 
production or to meet the requirements of transportation.” 

Ibid., page 23: 

“While precise figures are not now obtainable, it is safe to say that the current 
value of our inland transportation facilities (of which railways form all but a small 
percentage) exceeds one-eighth of our national wealth, yet these facilities are so far 
inadequate that production is impaired and the growth of the country is retarded. 
While trustworthy estimates can not be made without further data, it is reasonable to 
anticipate that congestion of interstate commerce can be obviated in large measure 
by judicious improvement of waterways adapted to barge and boat traffic, at a figure 
much less than that estimated by competent authorities for so increasing railway 
facilities as to meet present needs.” 


74 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


The shortage of railway facilities. —That railway facilities are inadequate is not a 
mere theory or general statement, but is shown by a circular sent out within the last 
few days by the Interstate Commerce Commission: 

“Interstate Commerce Commission, 

“ Washington , D. C., October 7, 1915. 

“Informal complaints to the commission indicate that the annually recurring failure 
of transportation facilities known as ‘car shortage’ is again appearing. The com¬ 
mission urges on all shippers and all carriers that close attention to methods of loading, 
unloading, moving, and promptly returning to use the cars now available will go far 
toward making the present supply of cars sufficient for all purposes. 

“In order that the business of the country may go forward without interruption, 
the commission urges shippers, both individually and through their associations, to 
cooperate to secure the prompt and full loading of cars and their prompt release. One 
of the chief causes of failure of car supply in past seasons has been the unnecessary 
detention of cars by careless shippers and by shippers using them for storage purposes. 
In the general public interest, shippers should endeavor to release cars at the earliest 
possible moment without regard to the free time given by the tariffs. 

“All the efforts of the shippers will be unavailing, however, unless the carriers also 
use extraordinary measures to eliminate all delays chargeable to them. The failure 
of car supply is usually a failure of car movement. The congestion of terminals is the 
ever-present feature at times of such failure. The commission therefore urges carriers 
to make every possible endeavor to improve their methods of operation at terminals 
in order that cars may move promptly. Also company material should be unloaded 
with the same dispatch that is required of shippers. 

‘ ‘ The commission is moved to make this appeal by its desire to save both shippers 
and carriers from the losses which are occasioned by failures of car supply, and by its 
knowledge that measures such as are here suggested have operated in past seasons 
to save all concerned from heavy losses. 

“By the commission. 

“George B. McGinty, Secretary. 

Impossible to foresee the expansion of commerce. —Preliminary report Inland Waterway 
Commission, page 384, paragraph “ A ”: 

“Now, it must be borne in mind that at the time, three-fourths of a century ago, 
when the industrial world seemed called upon to determine which system of trans¬ 
portation it would accept and develop, there was no conception of the tremendous 
part transportation was to play in the future. The wildest visionary would not have 
dared predict that by the dawning of the twentieth century the tonnage of freight 
would be even a small fraction of the immense amount that now moves. The idea 
that Europe and North America would be gridironed with hundreds of thousands 
of miles of railroads, moving billions of tons of goods, would have been scouted. At 
that time it was assumed that commerce made transportation; the idea that trans¬ 
portation makes commerce was of later development. The possible development of 
both the consuming and producing capacities of great populations was utterly un¬ 
suspected. Nobody dreamed that commerce would soon demand all the accommoda¬ 
tions that both rail and water could provide. It seemed a mere question of choosing 
between two systems of transportation, and naturally the one which offered the 
widest range of usefulness was taken up.” 

Who pays for the capitalization of new railroad lines ?—It must be remembered that 
in addition to rate regulation the improvement of the river increases the transporta¬ 
tion facilities and provides an additional outlet for the commerce of the Missouri 
Valley. Must this commerce rely entirely upon rail transportation and upon the 
probability of such rail facilities keeping pace with the commercial needs? It will 
cost $20,000,000 to provide an additional channel for commerce, but this channel is 
not limited to the capacity of a single line of railroad. Under proper use its capacity 
is probably that of a hundred lines of single-track railroad; its power of expansion 
under proper use is practically unlimited. Fifty years ago the first railroad train 
ran into Kansas City from St. Louis. The Missouri Pacific Railroad had been heavily 
subsidized by the people to encourage its construction because the existing traffic 
was not sufficient to pay operating expenses, much less a return upon the capital. 
To-day there are five lines of railroad between Kansas City and St. Louis, and the 
time is rapidly approaching where some of these lines must be double-tracked. The 
construction of a new line between Kansas City and St. Louis at the present time, 
including absolutely necessary terminals, will cost not far from the sum of $20,000,000! 
The five lines of single-track road now existing will not be sufficient to continue to 
handle the commerce, but will probably be outgrown in the next decade. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 75 


Where is the capitalization for the new lines to come from? Will not the public 
pay for this capitalization in some form if new single-track lines of railroads were 
added between Kansas City and St. Louis? The assumption that only the cost of im¬ 
proving the river is saddled upon the public and that by abandoning the improvement 
of the river a net saving is made of $20,000,000 is a fallacy. If the improvement of 
the river is abandoned in accordance with the report of the district officer the growth 
of commerce in the Missouri Valley will inevitably require more rail transportation, 
and the new capitalization thus needed must be met by the public. The amount of 
capital necessary to construct a new line of railroad will gradually increase as land 
values and the cost of terminals advance. To remit the commercial interests of the 
Missouri Valley to the use of rail transportation only and to assume that rail trans¬ 
portation will expand in proportion to the needs of commerce is to subject commerce 
to a constantly increasing burden for the capitalization of new railroad lines. This 
is not the case in the improvement of the river, but if the engineers are right in saying 
they can secure a 6-foot channel for $20,000,000 and can maintain it for $500,000 a 
year, this is by far the cheapest plan. 

Must railroads only be subsidizedf —Nearly every railroad west of the Mississippi 
and several east of that stream were built by Government aid, and in most cases had 
in addition thereto the aid of the States, counties, and townships. 

The extensions and reconstruction of these roads have been partly out of earnings 
and partly out of increased capitalization which must be met out of the rates charged 
the shipping public. 

The Pacific railroads between 1860 and 1880 were subsidized by the Federal Gov¬ 
ernment in land and bonds to the amount of approximately $400,000,000. Engineers 
now agree that the Government itself could have built the lines for less money. But 
the building of the Pacific railroads, which was not justified by the then “present” 
commerce, has not only developed the great trans-Mississippi region, but has increased 
the prosperity of our common country many hundred times the amount expended. 

Section 14. 


COMPARISON WITH MISSISSIPPI RIVER COMMERCE. 

“The fact is that anyone can make almost any estimate he sees fit as to the pros¬ 
pective commerce. I think a better way to approach the subject is by inquiry con¬ 
cerning a river that has been improved. An example is the Mississippi, between the 
mouth of the Ohio and the mouth of the Missouri. In the annual reports of the 
Chief of Engineers, this stretch of river is reported as having a navigable depth of 6 
feet or more during the entire navigation season of recent years. The commerce for 
the calendar year 1913 was 258,709 short tons, not including sand and gravel or ferry 
traffic. It should be noted that this stretch of river is so situated as to draw com¬ 
merce from the improved stretches of the Mississippi above and below it, as well as 
from the Ohio and the Missouri. If the Mississippi under these conditions and with 
a 6-foot channel carries 258,000 tons, it seems to me doubtful whether the Missouri 
with the same depth will carry any more. The Missouri River traffic would have to 
increase sevenfold to equal that on the above section of the Mississippi, and would 
have to increase a hundredfold to reach a figure commensurate with the cost of the 

work.” ..... 

As to this it may be said, first, that the stretch of the Mississippi referred to is a 
north and south stream, whereas the course of traffic in the interior of the country 
has been and is from east to west. This has been true ever since the era of railroad 
expansion following the Civil War. All of the trunk lines of railroad east of the 
Mississippi River lead toward the Atlantic seaboard, and the great exporting and 
importing of the country is done through the Atlantic ports. This is a very natural 
course of policy on the part of the railroads. The railroad lines west of the Mississippi 
followed also the east-and-west line of traffic, and the matter was still further deter¬ 
mined by the construction of the transcontinental land-grant roads. Every in¬ 
fluence since the Civil War has tended to carry traffic m east-and-west lines, as 
opposed to the north-and-south lines which had prevailed before. The Missouri 
River from Kansas City to the mouth is an east-and-west line and is paralleled by 
more lines of railroads than the stretch of the Mississippi spoken of. 

Moreover the rail transportation and traffic conditions are so dissimilar as to ren¬ 
der such comparison entirely inapt. We have pointed out elsewhere that the rates 
break or base upon St. Louis upon all traffic between points east of the Illinois-Indiana 
State line and all territory west of the Mississippi River. This is the natural result 
of the early construction of railroads to and west of the Mississippi and the original 
basis of rate adjustment, still operative, which fixed through rates at the sums of the 
locals to and from the river. (Burnham-Hanna-Munger case, 14 I. C. O., 299.) Ihis 


76 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


makes the westbound traffic “free,” in a transportation sense, at the Mississipp 1 
River. The same is true at the Missouri River upon eastbound movement of grain* 
grain products, hay, and various other important commodities. Thus it is seen that 
the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers are “rate-breaking” lines and that the Missouri 
between St. Louis and Kansas City, flowing in the direct line of transit of traffic, 
lends itself naturally as an intermediate transportation agency to all this immense 
commerce of manufactures originating east and consumed west, and, vice versa, the 
products of soil, mine, and forest from the Missouri River States and beyond con¬ 
sumed east and for export. No such conditions attach to the traffic and transporta¬ 
tion existing between the mouths of the Ohio and Missouri Rivers. 

The officer’s deductions are from interchange of river traffic only as to the local 
stretch of the Mississippi, but the improved Missouri will interchange an enormous 
fixed traffic with the rail lines east and west. This peculiar advantage of the Mis¬ 
souri reduces the deduction to a pure fallacy. 

Second. It is not to be assumed that the Mississippi has reached the maximum of 
its commercial use. Traffic on water lines, as on rail lines, must increase faster in 
proportion as the extension of connecting systems extend the influence of the rates 
and facilities of such traffic. A short section of river, even though carefully improved, 
is under a tremendous economic handicap, as is equally true of a short section of 
railroad. The matter is tersely put in the preliminary report of the Inland Water¬ 
ways Commission, 1908, page 387: 

“American railway history is full of demonstration that a short railroad, reaching 
a limited number of markets and deprived of advantageous connections, can not sur¬ 
vive unrestrained competition with a great system which reaches a vastly larger 
number of markets.” 

Many factors are now contributing to the revival of water-borne commerce. One 
factor is the protection which Congress has extended to boat lines against unfair 
methods of competition and the provisions made by recent legislation to compel inter¬ 
change of traffic between rail and boat lines. 

Another is the extension of a general system of waterways, including the Mississippi, 
Missouri, Ohio, and the route via the Illinois and Michigan Drainage Canal and the 
Illinois River, connecting the Mississippi with the Great Lakes. To this must be 
added the probable influence of the Panama Canal in drawing traffic of the Mississippi 
Valley toward the Gulf ports. 

Third. A bare statement of gross tonnage, without any description of the character 
of freight carried, throws very little light upon the actual commercial value of the 
river. We have seen that the Missouri River is carrying each season an increasing 
amount of high-grade freight, and in this class of freight the value can not be meas¬ 
ured solely in aggregate tonnage. It does not appear what classes of freight are car¬ 
ried on the stretch of the Mississippi from the mouth of the Ohio to the mouth of the 
Missouri. 

Some captious critics have affirmed that the reason why the railroads permitted this 
particular river traffic to exist was because, in connection with the Ohio River, it was 
operated almost exclusively in the interests of the Steel Trust. 

Prospective river commerce .—At the time the project was before Congress for adop¬ 
tion the tonnage of freight moving through the Kansas City gateway was estimated 
at 5,000,000 tons. This estimate was based on the figures of 1906, which is nine years 
ago. That tonnage is exceeded at the present time, based upon the actual eastbound 
traffic of the railroads in 1914 and the relation of east and west bound traffic in 1906. 
This is “present” commerce and not prospective commerce. It is present in the 
sense that it actually existed in 1914, but much of it was prospective at the time 
when the project was adopted. 

As stated by the district officer in section 14 of his report: The President of the 
Missouri Valley River Improvement Association assumed that out of the 5,000,000 
tons then estimated to be moving through the gateway of Kansas City, 20 per cent, or 
1,000,000 tons, would move on an improved river. This estimate is not challenged 
and should be increased rather than diminished. A saving of $10,000 in freight upon 
the movement of 37,000 tons of traffic at 80 per cent of rail rates would mean a saving 
of more than $250,000 in freight upon the movement of a million tons of the same 
traffic and revenue. But the class of river traffic is higher now. If the total traffic 
remained at 5,000,000 tons, it can not be denied that there would be a relative saving 
upon a large part of the remaining 4,000,000 tons from any lowering of rates, brought 
about by water competition of the improved river. 

As the total traffic from and through the lower river cities is now estimated to have 
reached 11,000,000 tons, there must be a relatively greater saving of freight on all of 
the increase in the traffic then in mind as soon as the river becomes a formidable 
factor. The saving on the freight not carried by river will not amount to the full 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 77 


20 per cent of the present rail rates, because in all probability somewhat higher than 
river rates would apply for all-rail transportation. But the saving will exceed one- 
half the present difference. If the saving amounts to 10 per cent on the remaining 
10,000,000 tons by rail to, from, and through the lower river cities, it will amount to 
more than $i,250,000 when plussed by the river traffic saving at 20 per cent lower 
rates. This assumes that the reduction in rail rates would aggregate $1 per ton and 
has regard for the higher class of commerce moving via river in 1915 over 1913. 

This saving is greater than the estimated annual expense of maintaining the river, 
even including the interest charge so newly added. This does not allow for any in¬ 
crease of traffic within the territory served by the river, even during the years when 
the river is being brought to a state of completion. We have seen, however, that 
the traffic is increasing in this territory and that it is now perhaps 11,000,000 tons to, 
from, and through the lower Missouri River cities, as against the 5,000,000 tons esti¬ 
mated in 1907. At least another decade will elapse before the river is completely 
improved and the Government money is all expended; by this time the gain in traffic 
can be estimated with reasonable accuracy, based upon the gain in past years. But 
if we confine ourselves to “present” commerce, we still have ample tonnage, which, 
if affected by the estimated saving in freight rates, would more than carry the esti¬ 
mated fixed charges of the improvement. It must be repeated that to reduce rates 
the river must not be left a mere “potential” or experimental project, but must be a 
permanent and going traffic factor. It must be completed and put in condition for 
successful navigation in accordance with the design of Congress. 

The following signed statements of prominent representative Kansas City concerns 
is evidence that a large and growing local commerce will go to the river in the future, 
based largely upon past performances since 1913: 

Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. 

“October 14, 1915. 

“We are at the present time favoring the Boat Line Co. with carload shipments of 
pulp board, prepared peanuts, chocolate, and paper wrappers. We estimate that at 
the present time we are giving the boat line about 50 per cent of the tonnage which 
is named on our attached statement.” 


Tonnage for one year estimated: Pounds. 

76 cars, 100 barrels each, sugar. 2, 584,000 

15 cars pulp board. 600,000 

8 cars prepared peanuts. 196,000 

25 cars chocolate. 800,000 

8 care paper wrappers. 288,000 


Builders Material Supply Co. 


4,468,000 

“October 15, 1915. 


“We are pleased to advise that we have shipped a carload of metal lath, amounting 
to about 30 tons, over the Missouri River from St. Louis to Kansas City via Kansas City 

Boat Line. , .. . . . . 

“We can easily give the boat line a dozen carloads a year if the service is continued, 
and will be glad to do so.” 

Carlisle Commission Co. 

“October 14,1915. 


“Kansas City handled 40,000 cars of hay last year and hope to handle about as much 
this crop season. With an improved river, so as to have a regular schedule and suffi¬ 
cient boats, feel safe in saying there would be 5,000 cars a year offered for shipment 
by the river to St. Louis and intermediate points as far down as New Orleans, and 
also for export. We have a contract to the Panama Canal for 3,000 tons of hay, which 
could go very nicely by the river. 

“The cars are getting larger; as the average car is about 13 tons, 40,000 care would 
make approximately a half million tons of hay, which is over a billion pounds in 

^ Kansas City Photographic Supply Co. 


“October 14, 1915. 

“We could give them what business we have out of St. Louis, which would possibly 
amount to from 1,000 to 2,000 pounds per month. This we will be glad to do and are 
instructing our manufacturers in St. Louis to ship all heavy freights by water route.” 








78 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Baker Manufacturing Co. — Windmills , pumps , cylinders, etc. 

“October 15, 1915. 

“When the Missouri River is so improved that the conditions for navigation are 
regular and safe, we feel disposed to patronize the navigation company. 

“We handle pipe from Pittsburgh, Pa., amounting to approximately 100,000 to 
200,000 pounds per year, and if the river was in shape so this could be handled by 
water safely, and at a saving to us in freight, we would certainly give the river trans¬ 
portation as much of our business as it is possible to do so.” 

Metzner Stove Repair Co. 

“October 15, 1915. 

“Referring to your recent communication inquiring as to the amount of freight 
which we can use on the river, will say that we use annually over 50 tons. We most 
certainly think that it would be a crime against the city as a whole if Col. Deakyne’s 
report is approved.” 

The Jones Store Co. 

“October 15, 1915. 

“If the boat line could improve its service from St. Louis, say have a boat leaving 
every day or every other day, so we would be assured of prompt service, we could 
give it practically all of our eastern business. 

“If such arrangements can be made for prompt service we have no doubt that 
during the coming year we could ship over the river perhaps 500 tons or a million 
pounds of first-class freight. As you doubtless know, this class of freight pays a 
profitable rate. 

“We are more than anxious to give the boat line every pound of freight possible, as 
we are profoundly impressed with the idea that river navigation is vital to the future 
success of Kansas City and the Great Southwest.” 

Montgomery Ward & Co. 

“October 15, 1915. 

“Our records indicate that we have used the river navigation to the extent of about 
700 tons, and if the Government can improve the river so that we can be assured of 
some regularity of service it would be safe to say that the tonnage would approximate 
1,000 tons or more per season. 

“About 80 per cent of our freight which goes by boat consists of freight which takes 
first-class freight rate. 

“The amount of tonnage which we would be in a position to give the boat line would 
depend altogether on the service and facilities for handling.” 

The Faeth Iron Co. 

“October 15, 1915. 

“It may be of interest to you to know that our tonnage from St. Louis to Kansas 
City via Missouri River Navigation Co. for 1914 was approximately 300,391 pounds 
and for 1915,3,378,301 pounds and that we consider it a very satisfactory way to handle 
our heavy commodities.” 

Townley Metal & Hardware Co. 

“October 14, 1915. 


“Our tonnage for the past five years is is follows: Pounds. 

1911 . 106,546 

1912 . 195,419 

1913 . 228,723 

1914 . 580,821 

To October 10, 1915. 912, 328 


“You will notice as the river has been improved the tonnage has nearly doubled. 
We estimate the available tonnage per season 2,750 tons, or 5,500,000 pounds, as 
minimum under normal conditions.” 

The Helmers Manufacturing Co. 

“October 15, 1915. 

. “We had for several years thought it would hardly be safe to ship furniture via boat 
line on account of the number of times it would be handled, but this season we have 
tried it out, shipping five carloads of desks. These shipments weighed 20,000 pounds 
each. The shipments have come to us not only in a very good time, the delivery 
being as good as that usually made by the railroads, but in perfect order. 







MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 79 


“We see no reason why quite a volume of furniture should not move via the river. 
So far as our shipments are concerned, unfortunately most of our goods come to us 
from Chicago territory, so that it is not practical to use the river. Believe, however, 
that we could probably ship 40 or 50 cars of 20,000 pounds each during the shipping 
season.” 

Maxwell-McClure-Fitts Dry Goods Co., wholesale. 

“October 15, 1915. 

“We find our tonnage on merchandise moving by the Kansas City Missouri River 
Navigation Co., thus far this season, is 463,534 pounds, a little in excess of 231 tons, 
and we see no reason why our tonnage should not be even greater next season than it 
has been the present year, as we find the service of the boat line very satisfactory. 

“They have been making excellent time this season, and the merchandise arrives 
in much better condition than when shipped by rail, and the pilferage is a great deal 
less.” 

Gregory Grocer Co. 

“October 15, 1915. 

“We just received another car of canned goods over your boat line during the past 
week and wish to state that we are more than pleased with your service, and further, 
we beg to state that if the service would be continued, we would use your boat line 
altogether in the future.” 

Snower Manufacturing Co. 

“October 14, 1915. 

“We wish to advise you that, as the end of the boat line season is nearly over, after 
November 1 we will discontinue routing goods via the river. 

“We are taking this opportunity of stating that, in the past four months, you have 
handled for us about 200 cases of cotton piece goods, resulting in a saving to us of 
about $125; also the service we received has been entirely satisfactory. 

“We are very pleased in the way you have handled this business and can assure 
you that next season you will receive a more liberal share of our business.” 

Southwestern Milling Co. 

“Kansas City, October 15, 1915. 

“At your request, we have compiled the tonnage which we consider available for 
boat service during the entire year of 1914, and the first nine months of the year 1915. 
In considering this proposition, we are assuming that the Missouri River and other 
western streams such as the Mississippi River, Illinois River and its canal connec¬ 
tions, will be brought to a state of perfection by the United States Government, that 
will enable ample bottom on the rivers to fully sustain the tonnage which would be 
proffered for shipment in line with the total production of this Missouri Valley. 

“The territories which we consider available for boat transportation are shipments 
destined to St. Louis, points east thereof, including Chicago, and to points south of 
the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River, which is termed southeastern terri¬ 
tory, and to the ports of New Orleans, and Mobile as Gulf outlets. The year 1914 our 
shipments to the territories designated above were as follows, which was available 
for water transportation wholly, or in part: 

“Total, 122,202,078 pounds. We have deducted from this the tonnage of the winter 
months, when navigation would probably be closed, namely, January, February, 
November, and December, 39,420,481 pounds; leaving net, 82,781,597 pounds; from 
which we have further deducted 20 per cent to cover what would be termed quick or 
time shipments of 16,225,278 pounds, leaving a net available tonnage for transporta¬ 
tion via water of 66,556,319 pounds, or 33,278 net tons. 

“For the nine months of the present year 1915, to the same territory available by 
water we have shipped 123,348,430 pounds; deducting from this the two winter months 
of January and February, and we have a net of 94,051,886 pounds; and further making 
a deduction of 20 per cent account of quick or time freight of 18,810,377 pounds, we 
have a net available tonnage for water service of 75,241,509 pounds, or 37,620 net tons. 

“This you will note is for only nine months, and as we understand you could readily 
use the river during the month of October, and at least half of November, it would 
materially increase these figures for the calendar year of 1915. 

“This refers entirely to the output of this one particular mill, located, as you know, 
at Kansas City, and consists exclusively of grain products.” 


80 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Burnham-Munger-Root Dry Goods Co. 

“ October 13, 1915. 

“We have used the Kansas City-Missouri River Navigation Co. to a larger extent 
and for a longer period during 1915 than for any previous year. This has been pos¬ 
sible because of the better service which this company has been able to give on account 
of their improved equipment and on account of the improvement of the river. 

“We understand it is the policy of the Kansas City-Missouri River Navigation Co. 
to improve their facilities as fast as the Government improves the river. If the 
service rendered by the transportation company is improved, so will the business 
on its line. Service then becomes the all important factor in producing business for 
the river. This service can not be satisfactory until the river is improved so that the 
transportation company can use it to a better advantage. 

“We found that we have been able to save $1.70 per ton on the average on all mer¬ 
chandise we have shipped via the Kansas City-Missouri River Navigation Co. We 
see no reason why we can not route 1,500 to 2,000 tons of freight per year via the boat 
line when it is able to give dependable and reasonably efficient service.” 

Western Wheeled Scrajper Co. 

“October 14, 1915. 

“I have had occasion to make some shipments of steel rail at two different times 
via the river, and the peculiar advantage that the river had at those times saved for 
me the business.” 


Schmelzer Arms Co., sporting and athletic goods. 

“October 14, 1915. 

“We are pleased to advise you that we have during the past year used the Missouri 
River in shipping approximately 200,000 pounds of freight. With the proper service 
we feel sure our business would give the river transportation line a business exceeding 
1,500,000 pounds. We appreciate the good work you are doing in this direction, 
but are not at all surprised, due to the fact that it is the unanimous opinion of the 
business interests of Kansas City and vicinity that water transportation is feasible 
and will do more toward developing our manufacturing interests and assisting our 
agricultural interests than any other avenue open to us.” 

The Haywood Alfalfa Warehouse Co. 

“October 14, 1915. 

‘“We are very strongly in favor of the Kansas City-Missouri River Navigation Co., 
and have consistently given them all the business that they could handle at the time 
we wished to move the goods for the past two years, even though the movement 
was handicapped and shipments made difficult by the lack of outbound railroad rates 
for the balance of the haul, particularly southeast of St. Louis. 

“We have been in the habit of giving the navigation company anywhere from 10 to 
50 cars at almost any time that they could handle them and will continue to do so. 
For the coming year of 1916 we could probably route their way from 5,000 to 7,000 
tons of alfalfa meal.” 

Steinhorst Preserving Co.. 

“October 12, 1915. 

“We have just installed a large cider mill at Waverly, Mo. Since most of our cider 
is sold west of Kansas City, we are using the boat line to good advantage in bringing 
our goods to Kansas City, and we are certainly in favor of any improvements of the 
river which would facilitate the service and extension of the boat-line business.” 

Geo. W. Johnston Manufacturing Co., General Iron Works. 

“ October 14, 1915. 

“Answering your favor of the 11th, will say that while our shipments are not very 
heavy from the East, we routed two cars this season via boat line, and will probably 
double that amount, or possibly route about 100 tons next season via boat line.” 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 81 


Sears, Roebuck & Co. 

“October 13, 1915. 


“We made shipments as follows: Pounds. 

May. 39.799 

June. 31.184 

July. 37.135 

August. 37. 362 

September... 36.298 


Making a total of. 181. 778 


“We have been very well satisfied with the service and saving and will undoubt¬ 
edly, at a later date, increase our river tonnage considerable.” 

Peet Bros. Manufacturing Co. 


“October 14, 1915. 

“For the past several years we have been using the facilities afforded by the 
Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. in handling our shipments, and our ton¬ 
nage has been from 150 to 200 tons eastbound and from 450 to 500 tons westbound, 
which makes a total of from 600 to 700 tons per season. 

“When the necessary improvements are made to the Missouri River to enable the 
Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. to more successfully and economically 
handle the business they can secure, our tonnage should amount to 1,000 tons east- 
bound and 3,000 tons westbound per annum.” 

J. W. Jenkins’ Sons Music Co. 

“October 12, 1915. 

“We have used the boat ever since they have established traffic. We find on 
looking over our records that on October 1, 1914, to October 1 of this year the boat 
line has carried 260 tons of freight (pianos and talking machines) for our company. 
Our merchandise weighs about 12,000 pounds to a carload. This would mean that 
we shipped in that time from St. Louis to Kansas City via the boat line 43 cars of 
merchandise. We are satisfied that we could increase this tonnage very materially 
provided the work is carried on so that the boat line could increase the number of 
barges. 

“The service this year has been better than any previous year and we feel that 
it would be a great loss to Kansas City’s commercial interest to have this boat line 
discontinued at this time.” 


Page-Love Chemical Co. 

“October 12, 1915. 

“We bring in here from the East about 100,000 pounds monthly, on which we can use 
the river transportation.” 


Hettinger Bros. Manufacturing Co., dental, surgical, and hospital supplies. 

“October 12, 1915. 

“That we have been using the river transportation to the extent of three carloads 
of plaster of Paris during the current year and we expect to use this means of trans¬ 
portation for the shipment of this class of product that we use in our business.” 

Zenith Milling Co., flour. 


“October 12, 1915. 

“In reply to your favor of the 9th instant we beg to state that our output is approxi¬ 
mately seven cars of 20 tons each per day, the greater part of which is shipped beyond 
the Mississippi River, and with an advantage in rates it is all practically available 
for river movement. 

“In 1914, because of the condition of the channel, we had so many delays we could 
not use the river to the fullest extent, but with an assured channel the river would 
be the medium of transportation.” 

H. Doc. 463, 64-1-6 









82 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

The Kansas City Bolt 6c Nut Co., manufacturers of merchant bar iron. 

“October 12, 1915. 

“The real beginnings of transportation facilities for a plant of this character mean 
barge delivery to a wharf on its own premises, where cranes could cheaply load or 
unload. This could be arranged by locking the Blue at its mouth. Then the Missouri 
River transportation would assume for us large portions, both in outgoing and incom¬ 
ing freight. Just how much, we would hesitate to suggest because of the large ^r- 
ritory satisfactory river accommodations would open up to us. 

“Our total number of cars handled in and out last month was 218.” 

J. Goldberg 6c Son, structural steel works. 


“October 12, 1915. 

“In reply beg to state that our firm has been using this river transportation since 
April, 1915, and since then we have had shipped in from St. Louis 400 tons of steel 
in this manner, and, in fact, the K. C. Missouri River Navigation Co. is bringing in 
100 tons of steel right now which is being shipped in from the Laclede Steel Co. 
This steel consists of reinforcing bars that are made in St. Louis. 

“There are other grades of steel that we are using for building purposes which 
come from the eastern mills, namely, the Pittsburgh (Pa.) district. The volume of 
our tonnage is about 2,000 tons per annum, and it would be to our advantage to have 
it shipped in by the Missouri River transportation for the difference in freight between 
the water transportation and the railroad transportation. 

“As yet the Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. has not got barges long 
enough to handle our material, as our material runs in lengths from 60 to 65 feet, and 
the longest steel they can handle is 50-foot lengths, but, as a matter of fact, I under¬ 
stand that they will build longer barges in the near future. 

“The entire requirements of our tonnage is about 2,500 tons per annum, and it 
would mean a saving to us of about $2,000 between the river transportation and the 
railroad transportation; therefore you can readily see how much we are interested 
that the improvements on the Missouri River shail continue.” 

Admiral Hay Press Co., manufacturers of Hay presses. 

“October 12, 1915. 

“We could give the river line an average of six or seven carloads a season at the least. 
It would mean a great deal to us, for the reason that our products are considerably 
weighty and the rating by the railroads makes the freight on them very high.” 

American Sash 6c Door Co., Kansas City-St. Joe. 

“October 12, 1915. 

“Our shipments from the Pacific coast amount to 5,000 tons or 250 cars per annum, 
which with the opening of the Panama Canal might be brought into this market by 
way of New Orleans and St. Louis with a material saving in freight as against the 
present rail rate, or any such rate that is likely to obtain in the future. 

“We receive from southern points—that is, Mississippi and Louisiana—in excess of 
6,000 tons, a large portion of which might move by water if the channels were improved 
their entire length. 

“We receive from eastern points from 400 to 600 tons per annum of such material as 
patent roofing and wall board, all of which take a rate somewhat in advance of the 
lumber rate, and which might be moved by way of water from St. Louis to Kansas 
City. 

“It might be urged by the enemies of river navigation that lumber moving by 
commodity rate, that the rate would be too low to effect a very material saving to 
the consumer. To do so would be to reason from a false basis, as the saving effected 
should be considered only from the standpoint of the relation that the freight bears 
to the value of the product. In the case of lumber the item of freight frequently 
equals 60 cr 75 per cent of the value of the product f. o. b. the mill, while in the case 
of dry goods and many other things the item of freight might be not to exceed 5 or 
10 per cent of the product f. o. b. point of manufacture, from which you will readily 
understand that a saving of 10 per cent of the carrying cost on lumber would represent 
a greater saving to the consumer than would a 20 per cent reduction on many of the 
other necessaries. The force of this statement can be appreciated only when vou 
compare lumber costs in markets enjoying river or lake rates as against markets depend¬ 
ing wholly upon rail carriage.” 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 83 


Gille Manufacturing Co., tin and japanned ware — sheet-metal goods. 

“October 12, 1915. 

“We have before us your letter of October 11. It would indeed be a blow to Kansas 
City—in fact, all Missouri River cities—to have our Congress withdraw appropriations 
for work on the Missouri River. By the operation of our boat line we are able to 
secure a rate fifth class on our commodities, $1 per ton lower than railroad rates. 

“During the year 1914 we had moved from the Ohio districts 1,250,000 pounds of 
flat sheets and 1,400,000 pounds of tin plate, fifth-class commodities. Ninety per cent 
of this material was made up into finished products in our factory. This puts us in 
better position to meet eastern competition. In addition to the above tonnage, we 
had moved from Granite City, Ill., 800,000 pounds of flat sheets.” 

Smith 6c Sons Manufacturing Co., manufacturers of modem road-making machines , 

gasoline engines. 


“October 12, 1915. 

“It is our earnest hope that sometime the steel-delivery situation will be relieved 
to such an extent that we can obtain steel deliveries more promptly, and in this way 
can afford to route shipments via the boat line. Our steel tonnage amounts to approx¬ 
imately 1,200 tons a year.” 

Security Stove 6c Manufacturing Co. 


October 12, 1915. 

“About the only commodity we would be able to transport by the Missouri River 
would be pig iron, on which our requirements are approximately 1,000 tons per year.’ 

Maxwell-McClure-Fitts Dry Goods Co., wholesale. 


“October 13, 1915. 

“As you know, we have given you a great deal more tonnage this year than any 
previous season, and our reason for doing so is from a strictly business standpoint. 

“Our merchandise, as you know, is composed of high-class commodities, which, of 
necessity, must be handled in a fairly prompt manner, and for this reason in times past 
have not given you the tonnage we would like. This season we have increased the 
tonnage very materially, and are glad to say that the service rendered has been very 
satisfactory. 

“The time in transit has been only a little longer than the all-rail service, and it is 
a fact commented on through our various departments, that merchandise is coming 
into our possession in better condition than it ever did when handled by railroad trans¬ 
portation . 

“We have had shipments from points east of the Illinois-Indiana State line through 
to Kansas City in 10 to 11 days, which is equal to the rail service that we had on 
previous shipments.” 

Lovejoy Planing Mill Co., sash, doors, blinds, moldings, etc. 


“October 13, 1915. 

“We could use the Missouri River transportation to a very considerable extent in 
bringing our lumber up from New Orleans and St. Louis, and that it would very 
materially help on the prices that we have to pay for this lumber. We get a great 
deal of this stock from Louisiana. In our case, it would amount to about 10 or 12 cars 
a year, which is a conservative estimate of what we would use.” 

Smith-McCord-Townsend Dry Goods Co., exclusive wholesale. 


“October 13, 1915. 

“According to our books we have received freight from the boat line in volume as 
follows: 1911, 389 tons; 1912, 802 tons; 1913, 896 tons; 1914,900 tons; 1915, 940 tons. 

“Up to September 1, 200 tons yet to come. We should be able to route goods under 
favorable navigation conditions from April 1 to December 1, and if so, our business 
would amount to 2,000 tons of first and third class freight, though mostly first class. 

“The largest shipment that we have received on any one boat arrived December 1, 
1912—802 cases, 368,702 pounds—the value of the shipment in excess of $75,000. 


84 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


“We have effected some saving in freight charges through the use of the navigation 
company, but our principal object in supporting the proposition was to contribute 
to the upbuilding of Kansas City as a distributing market. 

“In the early history of the navigation company—that is, before the improvement 
of the river had gotten well under way and when shipping risks were very great and 
the service, by reason of low stages of water, snags, etc., was very unsatisfactory—we 
contributed a large tonnage because we saw in this movement an opportunity to reduce 
transportation costs and thus magnify the importance of Kansas City as a distributing 
center. 

“It will not only be a loss to us, but will be an incalculable loss to Kansas City and 
to the Missouri River Valley if the navigation company is forced to quit business 
through the Government’s failure to complete its contract.” 

Kryder-Shepard Co., merchandise brokers. 


“October 12, 1915. 

“We can route every year from 10 to 20 cars via boat line, which business will be 
increased from year to year. At the present time we have an eastern manufacturer 
who is contemplating building a factory along the Missouri River, possibly near 
Boonville. Of course, this project will be held up pending decision of the War Depart¬ 
ment. This would mean additional business for Kansas City, as, of course, the boat- 
line rate is the only inducement to our people in building a western plant. 

“We hope this matter will be decided before December, at which time our people 
will complete their arrangements for this factory for the next season.” 

Sewall Paint & Glass Co., manvfacturers and jobbers. 

“October 13, 1915. 

“The past year is the fifst year we have used the boat line at all. We received mer¬ 
chandise to the extent of about 50 tons only during this past season, but are so well 
pleased with the time and manner in which our freight was handled by the Kansas 
City Missouri River Navigation Co. that we expect to route a good many more ship¬ 
ments over this route during the coming year. 

“The exact amount and tonnage we are unable to give at the present time, but we 
are quite sure it will be a decided increase over this past season.” 

Tarkio Molasses Feed Co. 

“October 13, 1915. 

“We have only been operating the mill in Kansas City for two years. During this 
time we have given the boat line but 90 tons for St. Louis proper, this light tonnage 
being due to the fact that the boat service has been rather irregular and uncertain, and 
as we manufacture a prepared stock feed, or what is generally known as a molasses 
stock feed, it is important that our shipments are not subjected to delay. During this 
period we shipped to and beyond St. Louis 3,668 tons of this feed, all of which we would 
have much preferred routing via the boat line, and our probable tonnage in the next 
year will far exceed the tonnage above given, as our business is growing rapidly and 
we are continually opening new territory bordering the Mississippi to New Orleans. 
In fact, we feel that our business is yet in its infancy.” 

The United States Stock Food Co., high grade mixed feeds, of corn, oats, pure alfalfa, etc. 

“October 13, 1915. 

“For instance, we use annually about 10,000 tons of blackstrap molasses, which 
comes by steamer from Cuba to New Orleans and is there transferred to tank cars for 
shipment to us by rail. 

“This molasses should come to us by water all the way and will just as soon as ade¬ 
quate facilities for such shipments are made. 

“We also expect to ship a considerable portion of our output to eastern and southern 
States in the future, and most of it can and will go at least part of the way via the 
Missouri and Mississippi Rivers if facilities and rates are favorable. 

“ As to the practicability of making the Missouri River navigable we are in no position 
to say. That is a matter for engineers to determine. But as to the utility of the river, 
if it can be made navigable, there can be no doubt in the mind of anyone who will give 
the subject even superficial and casual consideration.” 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 85 

United States Water & Steam Supply Co., plumbing and heating material. 

“October 13, 1915. 

“This company is a stockholder in the boat line company, but until about a year ago 
we did not feel that we could have such goods as we sell handled to advantage by the 
boat line. We decided, however, to give the matter a trial; therefore, had several 
carloads of material shipped by boats during the summer. Our experience was so 
satisfactory that we are now planning to use the boat line whenever it is possible to 
route material via St. Louis, which means that we shall route several hundred tons of 
freight in that way.” 

W. A. Laidlaw Wire Co. 

“October 13, 1915. 

“During the past year we have received 690,309 pounds, or 345 tons 309 pounds, of 
goods via Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. We expect to increase this next 
year.” 

Southwest Warehouse Co., storage. 

“October 13, 1915. 

“While we have been in business only a little over a year, we have received as much 
as three carloads of material from the boat line, but this is nothing compared to what 
we expect to receive in case you are successful in the continuance of this long-needed 
feature.” 

, Butler Manufacturing Co., steel products. 


“October 13, 1915. 

“It is almost impossible for us to say how much freight would be shipped via the 
boat line, as it depends very largely upon the service that they could render. 

“At the present time we have 14 carloads of freight routed in connection with the 
boat line at St. Louis for shipment to Kansas City, to move before the close of the 
season this year. 

“If conditions warrant, which we think they will, we should be able to move at 
least three or four hundred tons yearly via the boat line, and possibly more.” 

The Kansas City Paclcing Box Co., wooden packages. 

“October 12, 1915. 

“If the rivers could be put into shape to take care of traffic we could give business 
amounting to thousands of tons of lumber. This, of course, would be barge stuff 
entirely from points of shipment on the Mississippi. 

“We use between two and three thousand cars per year, averaging 30,000 to 35,000 
pounds to the car. We do not have many outgoing cars, as most of our boxes are used 
here in the city, although later on we hope to be able to ship our commodity"to points 
that may be touched by the river.” 

Luce Trunk Co., fine leather goods. 

“October 13, 1915. 

“We have used the Kansas City, Mo., River Navigation Transportation Co. ever 
since its organization, and each year we are using it in the transportation of our goods 
from St. Louis more and more. 

“I do not know that I can give you the amount in tons or carloads, but I think 
that scarcely a week has elapsed during the open season, which is, I should say, from 
eight to nine months each year, and we are saving 20 per cent on the railroad rates. 

“Next year we expect to use it more and more as our business increases.” 

Bemis Bro. Bag Co., bags, burlaps, twines. 


“October 12, 1915. 

“We have had some of our goods shipped via the boat line when the shipping point 
originated, say, in St. Louis. Last year we got in several cars. This year, due to lack 
of demand covering that particular line of goods, we had but one carload, amounting 
to 15 tons, and we no doubt could increase the tonnage if they are going to continue 
making regular trips as they did this season.” 


86 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

The Askew Saddlery Co ., harness , saddles , horse collars , etc. 

“October 13, 1915. 

“I beg to advise you that we have shipped over the Missouri River from St. Louis 
to Kansas City this summer 213,982 pounds. This consisted of one carload of harness 
leather, four cars of sweat pads, the balance of robes and blankets for this winter. 
Advise you that the service has been very satisfactory, and we feel that we could 
easily double this next year. The reason the leather shipments have been so small 
over the river this year is because most of our leather purchases have been made in 
California. That is due to unusual conditions, and it has never prevailed before and 
probably will not prevail again. Advise you that the time made on these shipments 
are just as good as the railroad, and we will use every effort to give them all the tonnage 
we can.'’ 

Ellet-Kendall Shoe Co. 

“October 12, 1915. 

“Answering your inquiry of October 9, we gave the boat line 20 tons of incoming 
freight on one trip this summer, and we gave them 60 tons of incoming freight on one 
trip a year ago.. We never have used the boat line on outgoing freight. We could 
give the boat line from 80 to 100 tons per month of incoming freight during the season 
of navigation if the river were sufficiently improved to enable the boat to take care 
of our business and give us the very best service.” 

Kansas City Slate & Tile Roofing Co. * 


“October 12, 1915. 

“Our principal product is roofing slate quarried in Pennsylvania and Vermont 
and shipped to this section in carload lots, averaging in weight from 50,000 to 57,000 
pounds, sometimes as much as 80,000 pounds in a car, with an average freight of 40£ 
cents per hundredweight. Of this, 27 cents is to the Mississippi River, the balance 
of 13| cents across the State of Missouri. We have always held that this rate was 
unequal, giving towns like St. Louis, for instance, an advantage in the freight on 
roofing slate, with the result that great quantities of slate roofing is used in St. Louis 
and little or none in Kansas City, on account of the high freight rate. 

“We have always felt that our product could be shipped via boat from St. Louis, 
as great quantities are exported and also shipped around to Galveston, Tex., at a very 
low rate, the material being imperishable, and could be shipped on open flat boats 
or barges.” 

Richards & Conover Hardware Co. 

“October 13, 1915. 

‘ ‘ Our company has always been in favor of the improvement of the Missouri River, 
and have always used it as a mode of transportation when there has been an oppor¬ 
tunity to do so. We believe it is the greatest asset Kansas City has to make it the 
great commercial and distributing center of this section, the same as water transpor¬ 
tation has made Chicago great. 

“In 1857 J. F. Richards, the founder of our house, took a stock of goods via the 
Missouri River from St. Louis to Leavenworth, Kans. The rates charged him at that 
time on hardware were lower than they are now after 58 years of progress (?) in trans¬ 
portation. From that time to now we have used the river at every opportunity, and 
we herewith give you a statement of our total tonnage for 1913,1914, and 1915, up to 
October 9: 


Years. 

Tons via 
rail. 

Tons via 
boat. 

Total 

tons. 

Approxi¬ 
mate 
per cent, 
boat. 

1911. 


186 

448 

790 

266 

1,932 



1912. 




1913. 

9,877 
13,515 
10,555 

10,667 
13,781 
12,487 

71 

llf 

1914. 

19151. 



1 Jan. 1 to Oct. 9. 

















MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 87 


“In addition to the above we have placed orders for about 270 tons routed via boat 
line, part of which is now in transit. 

“Also the statement shows the tonnage that we have moved by river from 1911 to 
date. The last three years we show the percentage of our total tonnage that was moved 
by river. The percentage was very small in 1914 on account of the low stage of water 
interfering with navigation. 

“In 1915 up to date the percentage of movement shows a very decided increase, 
which is accounted for by the good stage of water all through the season up to date. 
It would have been even larger if the navigation company had greater facilities. 

“We estimate that with a reliable channel that can be depended upon that our per 
cent of water-borne tonnage would go to 40 per cent immediately, and rise from that 
figure to greater than 50 per cent as service improved.’’ 

McPike Drug Co., wholesale, statement. 

“October 16, 1915. 

“During the year 1913 we received via the Kansas City Missouri River Navigation 
Co. 7£ tons of freight; in 1914 we received 199 tons; in 1915 to the 1st of October, 170 
tons, which will probably be added to before the season is finished, making an aggre¬ 
gate of 200 tons. Our total tonnage is approximately 2,000 tons, and if boats and 
barges were leaving St. Louis daily we could multiply the tonnage via the boat line 
to the amount of 1,000 to 1,200 tons. 

“In the wholesale drug business the tonnage is not great, but as a rule the classes 
are first and second, with very few commodity rates. 

“We have every disposition to use the river as extensively as possible, and upon 
an improved channel with regular sailings we would, beyond question, give to the 
boat-line company a most liberal tonnage of our shipments. 

Ryley-Wilson Grocery Co. 

“October 16, 1915. 

“Our total tonnage into Kansas City from north, south, east, and west is about 
20,000 tons per annum. Of this amount, there is about 3,000 tons that comes from 
the East to Kansas City that we could ship over the boat line if the improvement of 
the river was completed and W'e could be assured of prompt, safe, sure, and quick 
deliveries. A great deal of our merchandise is more or less of a perishable nature. 
We have only been shipping comparatively small business over the boat line on 
account of the incomplete improvements of the river, and consequently the independ¬ 
able time of our receiving our merchandise; but we have always intended, when the 
river should have been completed and when the boat-line service is prompt, quick, 
and reasonably sure, to ship the greater part of our tonnage that comes from the east 
over the boat line for the purpose of saving the rate in freight on the boat line and 
via railroad, as well as to establish the regular boat-line service both east and west, 
as we know successful establishment of that service when the river shall have been 
finally improved would vastly benefit all of the western country in shipping its 
farm products of every kind to the seaboard, consequently we want to see the river 
improved not only for our own firm’s improvement but for the benefit of this entire 
middle western country.” 

Ridenour-Baker Grocery Co. 

“This house has used the Missouri River as a freight carrier since 1858, the year it 
began business. If we have not used the river any year since 1858, no boats were 
available or the channel was temporarily not usable. Until the Missouri Pacific 
Railway reached Kansas City, in 1866, the river was practically our only way of 
getting goods from points east of the Mississippi. 

“In view of the history of our business, we naturally regard river navigation, actual 
and potential, as one of the best resources of this house and this community, and we 
consider its continuous development and permanent improvement of paramount 
importance to Kansas City and its tributary territory. 

“In recent years we have made the following shipments by the Missouri River: 
1913, 308,000 pounds, equal to 154 tons; 1914, 323,187 pounds, equal to 161 tons; 
1915, 1,516,547 pounds, equal to 758 tons. 

“Shippers of merchandise now require more in safety, speed, and care in handling 
of transportation lines than in former years. We call your attention to the fact that 
as the channel has been made safely navigable by the United States Government, 
and the equipment of the local boat line has been improved, we have been able 
to give more freight to the river.” 


88 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Section 16. 

CONGRESS DETERMINES APPROPRIATIONS. 

Full emphasis has been laid by all of the various engineering boards and officers 
upon the necessity of continuous and systematic improvement. Unquestionably, 
if the project is worthy and is to be finally brought to successful completion, the 
most economical way is to support it with regular and sufficient appropriations, 
or possibly to place it under a continuing-contract system; but we are not entitled 
to assume, whatever may have been the experience of the past, that Congress will 
proceed in a wasteful manner with inadequate or irregular appropriations. For the 
purpose of this report we must assume that Congress will proceed according to its 
collective judgment as to what is adequate and economical in the way of appropri¬ 
ations. 


ANALYSIS OF AND COMMENTS UPON EXHIBITS 1 TO 48, INCLUSIVE. 

[By R. D. Sangster, transportation commissioner.] 

Note. —The lack of time when this witness was called precluded the presenting 
of this testimony in detail at the hearing. 

Prospective saving in freight charges justifies improvement of river .—In paragraph 6 
of his report the district officer compares the cost of the present improvement project 
with the benefits to be derived. The cost is estimated at $1,100,000 per year, made 
up of interest, $600,000, and maintenance, $500,000. The benefits to be derived are 
by paragraph 8 designated by him to be “the actual saving in freight charges by 
the use of the river and the effect on railroad freight rates produced by the possi¬ 
bility of water transportation.” 

In reply attention is directed to the existing eastbound traffic shown in Exhibit 
26, which in the year 1914 moved via the railroads to and from Kansas City and via 
Kansas City, originating in and destined to the State of Kansas and southern Nebraska. 
It fairly appears from the projection of these actual figures that the traffic in question 
aggregated, in 1914, 4,629,074 tons, and when there is added the traffic to and from 
the Southwest, Colorado and beyond, the total was over 9,000,000 tons. If the Mis¬ 
souri river had been improved completely as contemplated by the present project 
and had secured as much as 20 per cent of this traffic, the movement via river would 
have aggregated 925,815 tons, confining it to the traffic originating at and destined 
to Kansas City, the State of Kansas, and southern Nebraska. If the traffic increases 
during the next eight years as it has in the past eight, in 1922 it will have reached 
1,237,351 tons. Doubling this figure by the addition of traffic to and from the South¬ 
west, Colorado and beyond, would make the total reach 2,474,702 tons for river trans¬ 
portation. This assumes that the river would secure only 20 per cent at the outside, 
but the voluminous testimony given by shippers in the hearing before the board 
justifies the presumption that an even greater proportion will actually go to the 
improved river. So much for tonnage. 

The computations hereinbefore made in connection with Exhibit 35 deal more 
directly with “the effect on railroad freight rates produced by the possibility of water 
transportation.” A reduction of only 10 per cent in the rail rates, affecting as it 
would 100 per cent of the traffic, is shown would result in a lower freight charge by 
substantially more than $1,000,000 upon just that traffic originating at and destined 
to Kansas City and moving via Kansas City to and from Kansas and southern Nebraska. 
If the southwestern traffic and the traffic to and from Colorado and beyond is included, 
the saving will reach over $2,000,000 in toto, based upon a 10 per cent reduction 
in rail rates. It should be remembered that the computations referred to deal only 
with the eastbound revenue, and that the eastbound revenue is, as shown by Exhibit 
26, only 36.15 of the total east and west. 

The only question then is, assuming the ability of the river when improved to 
transport 20 per cent of the tonnage, will the rail rates likely be reduced as much 
as 10 per cent? 

We point to Exhibit 44, which shows that in competition for a tonnage of general 
traffic of 822,517 tons moving via the Panama Canal from coast to coast during less 
than 12 months, the transcontinental railroads have reduced and are proposing fur¬ 
ther reduction in the all-rail rates to Pacific coast terminals aggregating much over 
10 per cent, and in very many important instances as much as 20 to 35 per cent in 
carload rates, with still greater relative reduction in less than carload rates. It should 
be remembered that these transcontinental rates are blanketed from Colorado to 
the Atlantic seaboard, and that the reductions apply upon all the traffic originating 
in that wide expanse of territory. We have just pointed out that these reductions 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 89 


have come about in competition for a traffic of less than 1,000,000 tons. Our estimate 
of 10 per cent reduction in rates resulting from Missouri River navigation is made 
in connection with a competitive tonnage which the river might transport of 2,500,000 
tons in round numbers, so the incentive for making reductions would be correspond¬ 
ingly greater. 

Improvement of river necessary for effective regulation of rates. —In paragraph 12 of his 
report the officer intimates that this territory now had adequate relief as to rates 
through another arm of the Government, namely, the Interstate Commerce Commis¬ 
sion, and that for this reason “it does not seem necessary to spend $20,000,000 to 
bring about a proper rail rate between Kansas City and St. Louis.” 

This proposition is answered by Exhibits 38, 39, 40, and 41. Exhibit 39 shows the 
class rates from Chicago to Minneapolis and Kansas City for the years 1890 and 1915. 
The distance is approximately the same by rail. In 1890 the rates were substantially 
identical, but since July 1, 1894, by an increase in the rates to Kansas City, Minne¬ 
apolis having remained stationary, the rates to Kansas City are very much higher 
than the rates to Minneapolis. Kansas City in the meantime complained to the Inter¬ 
state Commerce Commission against this situation. (14 I.C. C.,299.) Kansas City’s 
complaint on grounds of discrimination was dismissed by the commission because of 
the dissimilarity in the conditions of transportation, Kansas City having only rail 
transportation, whereas Minneapolis enjoyed the benefits of proximity to actual water 
navigation. 

The importance of the class rates on westbound traffic is shown by Exhibit 38. 
Over 50 per cent of the commodities given are subject to fifth-class rating, as dis¬ 
tinguished from special “commodity ” rates. As shown by the exhibit, bar iron takes 
fifth class. The same is true of all iron and steel articles originating at Chicago and 
in the Pittsburgh district. There is a large movement of iron and steel to Kansas City. 
Witness Charles E. Faeth, a representative wholesaler at Kansas City, testified (Rec., 
340-341) that he would ship via the improved river under proper conditions of service 
an annual volume of at least 5,000 tons of this traffic. Witness H. A. Fitch, a fabri¬ 
cator of structural steel at Kansas City, testified (Rec., 461-464) that his shipments 
from the East of iron and steel for fabrication amount to 20,000 tons a year, and that 
he would ship the big bulk of it on the improved river. This semimanufactured raw 
material takes the same rate as finished iron and steel products from the East, namely, 
fifth class. 

It is shown by Exhibit No. 40 that the rate on wheat, Kansas City to Chicago, is 7.2 
cents per bushel; the rate to St. Louis 5.4 cents. By Exhibit 41 it appears that the 
average rate on grain from Chicago to Buffalo via the lake lines is about 1 cent per 
bushel. The short-line rail distance from Kansas City to St. Louis is 277 miles and 
to Chicago 451 miles. It was estimated by Maj. Schulz, in House Document 1128, 
Sixtieth Congress, second session, that grain could be transported on the river from 
Kansas City to St. Louis for 1 cent per bushel, and relative distances considered as 
between this stretch of river and the lake route, Chicago to Buffalo, the estimate would 
seem to be well fortified. 

It would be interesting to lay before you the tonnage of these railroads between 
Kansas City and Chicago as of the year 1894, in comparison with previous and subse¬ 
quent periods, to see whether density of traffic and operating conditions of the carriers 
had warranted the increase in the rates made July 1, 1894. This is impossible. We 
have, however, in Exhibit 36, given you certain reliable data of these carriers, includ¬ 
ing certain prominent southwestern lines, for the years 1908 to 1913, inclusive, in 
respect of freight density, economies in operation, per ton and ton-mile earnings. 
The figures conclusively show that these railroads have enjoyed a constantly increas¬ 
ing traffic and efficiency of operation. Such results might well be accompanied with 
lower rate level. If the gain for this recent period in these respects is any criteria by 
which to judge of the ability of the railroads to establish lower rates since 1894, it may 
be safely inferred that the conditions have in fact warranted reduced rates. But the 
history of the matter is that instead of contemplating reduced rates these railroads 
have recently been before the Interstate Commerce Commission attempting to secure 
higher rates. The commission rejected the claims of the western lines, but did allow 
a general increase in rates in territory east of the Mississippi River, in 1914. 

Not only is the Interstate Commerce Commission without power to initiate rates 
by rail as low as are made by water (brief, pp. 86-88), but you have a striking example 
in this Missouri River territory of the need of effective water transportation to accom- 
’’ \ what the Interstate Commerce Commission is powerless to prescribe as to rates 



east and west. 


Present and prospective commerce of this region justifies river improvement. —In para¬ 
graph 14 of his report the officer tests the question of river improvement by the 
present and prospective commerce, and says: “In my opinion the improvement must 
stand or fall by this criterion.” Comparison is drawn by him between the estimated 


90 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


1,000,000 tons for Missouri River made in the original reports in 1908 and the commerce 
of that stretch of the Mississippi River between the mouth of the Ohio and the mouth 
of the Missouri, which, in the year 1913, aggregated 258,000 tons. 

The eastbound movement of grain, grain products, and hay via the railroads from 
Kansas City and via Kansas City from Kansas and southern Nebraska in 1914 was 
2,141,160 tons. This was 73 per cent of the total tonnage. Confining in the estimate of 
prospective river commerce only 20 per cent of the total tonnage, would yield, based 
on 1914 traffic, 428,232 tons of grain, grain products, hay, etc., alone. It can not 
be denied that this is desirable traffic for both rail and water transportation. By 
Exhibit 47 it is demonstrated that over 86 per cent of the eastbound tonnage of the 
lake lines during the calendar year 1914 was composed of this particular kind of traffic. 
Kansas City is the second largest grain market in the United States, and the rates on 
grain and products from Kansas and southern Nebraksa break at Kansas City in 
movement east. (Rec., p. 502.) It is common knowledge, but at any rate is estab¬ 
lished by exhibits herein of the movement via rail and lake lines, that grain and 
products, hay, etc., move eastwardly to domestic and foreign markets. Exhibit 4 
shows that the Missouri River States from which these products are drawn to the 
Kansas City market, produced in the eight years 1907 to 1914, 46.7 per cent of the 
entire wheat crop and 37.28 per cent of the entire corn crop of the United States. 
Exhibit 5 shows that in 1914 these States produced 54.2 per cent of the wheat, 36.8 
per cent of corn, 41.8 per cent of oats, and 20.9 per cent of hay for the entire United 
States. Exhibit 14 shows the surplus shipments in the year 1912 of similar com¬ 
modities and various others from the 20 Missouri River counties bordering on the 
Missouri River. The surplus of grain was 465,588 tons and of grain products 100,586 
tons. 

Various other exhibits show the gain in volume of these commodities handled in 
Kansas City market in recent years, and by Exhibits 7 to 13 is indicated the substantial 
production in this territory of such minerals as petroleum oil, coal, lead, zinc, etc., 
and of cement. All of these commodities may be considered as desirable river traffic, 
and the rate of gain in production of them in this territory has been such as to leave 
no room for reasonable doubt that the tonnage therein will constantly increase as the 
agricultural and mineral resources of this territory are developed. The statistics on 
growth in population and value of manufactured products in Kansas City and in this 
general territory are simply cumulative in forcing this conclusion. All of this at 
the same time supports an increasing westbound commerce. 

As to the comparison between the Missouri River prospective commerce and the 
actual commerce upon the stretch of the Mississippi River selected by the officer, we 
may refer to the essential dissimilarities as touched upon of record (pp. 516-528). 
It seems sufficient to say that the drift of traffic in this country is east and west, and 
that upon all of that traffic except transcontinental business, the rates break at the 
Mississippi River; that the rates eastbound break in the same way, and as before 
pointed out, break also at the Missouri River upon grain and products, hay, etc., from 
Kansas and Nebraska. This peculiar rate adjustment enhances the value of the 
Missouri River, which runs in the same course with the rate adjustment and the 
movement of tonnage. The same can not be said of the Mississippi River between 
the mouth of the Ohio and the mouth of the Missouri, even considering it in connec¬ 
tion with the through movement of traffic. The rates north and south, even if the 
volume of traffic were there, do not break either at Cairo or St. Louis. It follows that 
the potentialities of Missouri River commerce are distinctive and unique. 

Neither the present and prospective commerce of this region nor the comparison 
made between the prospective commerce of the Missouri River and the stretch of the 
Mississippi River adopted.may properly be relied upon as justifying a discontinuation 
of the present Missouri River improvement project. 

Opening of Panama Canal justifies river improvement .—As stated in the sixth para¬ 
graph of the protest against the officer’s report, and as testified to of record (pp. 529-533 
and elsewhere), the radical reductions in rates for the water service between Atlantic 
and Pacific coasts through the canal, have been such as to jeopardize the commercial 
interests of the Middle West. These lower rates have extended the zone of sea com¬ 
petition far inland in the Middle States east of the Mississippi River, so that the 
present combination of rail and ocean rates on Atlantic and Gulf ports effect materially 
lower through rates to and from that region and the Pacific coast in relation with the 
rail rates to and from this mid-western country, and place a serious handicap upon 
the Missouri River territory. This is true notwithstanding the recent reductions in 
rail rates between this territory and the Pacific coast in consequence of the acute 
competition, between the rail and water carriers from coast to coast. The rates 
between this section of country and Atlantic and Gulf ports are so much higher 
relatively than the rates between Middle States’ territory and those ports, that the 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 91 


Missouri River territory can not avail of the ocean service nor procure anything but 
threatened commercial embarrassment from the opening of the canal. The alternative 
is the improvement, not only of the Missouri River, but the Mississippi as well, and 
the opening of through water routes to the Gulf and the Atlantic seaboard through the 
Great Lakes. This territory has never enjoyed lower rates to and from the Pacific 
coast than from the Atlantic seaboard by rail. The railroads do not propose any 
lower rates now that the canal is open. The result is that this territory is completely 
surrounded, looking at the situation broadly, by a rate wall; the rates are higher from 
the East, and very much higher per mile to the Missouri River than to the Mississippi 
River, and are so much higher relatively between this territory and the seaboard, 
than the rates between points in the middle eastern section and Atlantic and Gulf 
ports, as to make a hump in the through charges between this territory and the Pacific 
coast as compared with the territory east of the Mississippi River, a condition that 
has never heretofore obtained in anything like the present degree. 

Correction— At page 525 of transcript, through typographical error, it is stated 
that “St. Louis takes 170 per cent of the New York-Chicago standard all-rail rates.” 
It should read “117 per cent.” 

Population. —Exhibit 1 draws comparison of gain in population between Missouri 
River States and Ohio River States, so called, which shows that the Missouri River 
States have gained 44.5 per cent, as against a gain in Ohio River States of only 36.3 
per cent, in the two decades closing with the year 1910. 

In the same period the population of Kansas City, Mo., and Kansas City, Kans., 
considered as one city, has gained from 171,032 in 1890 to 330,712 in 1910, or over 
93 per cent. On July 1, 1914, the Government Census Bureau estimated the popu¬ 
lation of these two cities to be 376,182, which showed a gain of 13.7 per cent over 
the 1910 census and 69.9 per cent over the census of 1900. 

Exhibit 2 compares the increase in value of all farm crops between the Missouri 
River States and Ohio River States, and shows that the Missouri River States’ gain 
was 109.5 per cent, the Ohio River States’ gain 59.9 per cent. 

Exhibit 3 shows the value of all farm property in the Missouri River States to have 
gained 289.14 per cent for the two decades ending 1910 and in the Ohio River States 
a gain of 91.3 per cent. The gain of the entire country was 154.9 per cent. The 
Missouri River States in 1910 contained 32.56 per cent, as against the Ohio River 
States 25.79 per cent, of the entire value of farm property of the country. 

Exhibit 4 shows the wheat and corn production of Missouri River States for eight 
years—1907 to 1914, inclusive. During this period the production of the Missouri 
River States was 46.7 per cent of wheat and 37.28 per cent of corn of the entire country. 

Exhibit 5 shows the principal grains produced in the Missouri River States during 
the year 1914. Of the entire country’s production the Missouri River States’ crop 
of wheat was 54.2 per cent; corn, 36.8 per cent; oats, 41.8 per cent; barley, 35 per 
cent; rye, 18.4 per cent; hay, 20.9 per cent; flaxseed, 80.4 per cent, etc. These 
States produced 20.83 per cent of the entire wool crop of the country. 

Exhibit 6 shows the value of manufactured products in the Missouri River States 
compared with Ohio River States for the period 1899 to 1909. The Missouri River 
States made a gain of 88 per cent and the Ohio River States a gain of 73 per cent. 

Exhibits 7 and 8 relate to the petroleum oil industry. Nearly one-half of the high- 
grade oil produced in 1913 came from Kansas and Oklahoma, and 26.5 per cent of 
the total of all grades of oil produced in the United States in 1913, representing 20 
per cent of the world’s supply, came from these two States. In 1900 the crude pro¬ 
duction of Kansas and Oklahoma was 81,186 barrels; in 1905, 12,013,495 barrels; and 
in 1913, 65,954,413 barrels. 

Exhibit 9 shows the production of cement. In 1900 Missouri, Kansas, and Iowa 
produced 80,000 barrels, and in 1913, 11,801,848 barrels. These three States pro¬ 
duced 12.82 per cent of the total for United States. 

Exhibit 10 shows the production of coal in the Missouri River States was, in 1900, 
16,794,985 tons, and in 1913, 26,948,334 tons. 

Exhibit 11 shows that in 1913 the States of Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma pro¬ 
duced 157,148 short tons of lead, or 97.4 per cent of the total for United States. 

Exhibit 12 shows that Missouri, Kansas, and Oklahoma, in 1913, produced 145,371 
tons of zinc, or over 43 per cent of the entire country’s production. 

Exhibit 14 shows the surplus shipments in the year 1912 of the 20 Missouri counties 
bordering on the Missouri River of various products, agricultural, horticultural, 
mineral, forest, etc., in tons. 

Kansas City and Omaha shipments of agricultural products— Exhibit. 15 shows the 
number of bushels of grain, tons of hay, and barrels of flour shipped from Kansas 
City during the years 1907 to 1914, inclusive. 


92 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Exhibit 17 shows the importance of Kansas City as a market place and distributing 
center for hay. During the year 191.4 there were received at this market 26,341 cars, 
containing 303,132 tons of hay valued at $2,121,924. 

Exhibit 16 shows similar information as to Omaha, except hay, flour, and kaffir corn. 

Exhibit 18 displays the number of grain elevators at Kansas City in 1915 and shows 
that there is storage capacity at this market now for 22,315,000 bushels of grain. 

Exhibit 19 shows similar information for Omaha, and indicates that that city in 1914 
had storage capacity for 7,200,000 bushels of grain. 

Exhibit 20 shows the development of Kansas City, Mo., by years, from 1905 to 1914, 
measured by certain reliable data. Post office receipts in 1905 were $1,400,838.46, 
and in 1914, $2,997,307.87. Mail matter handled in 1905, 296,481,883 pieces; in 1914, 
415,257,867pieces. Internal-revenue receipts, 1905, $935,559.47; in 1914, $2,412,717.64. 
Bank clearings, 1905, $1,197,905,556; in 1914, $3,015,810,567. Bushels of grain 
handled, in 1905, 65,599,500; in 1914, 105,231,050. 

Exhibit 21 shows the live-stock transactions at 13 principal markets in 1914. Of the 
total number of head received, the Missouri River markets received 36.8 per cent. 

Exhibit 22 shows the sales of Kansas City merchants in thirty-odd jobbing lines 
during the year 1913 aggregated $202,000,000 in round numbers. 

Exhibit 23 shows a four-year growth in Kansas City industrials. 

Exhibit 24 shows the total value of manufactured products in Kansas City for four 
periods, 1899 to 1914. In 1899 the gross value was $103,612,000, and in 1914, 
$319,428,000. 

The Kansas City output of flour by years from 1907 to 1914 is given. In 1907 the 
output was 1,974,949 barrels, and in 1914, 2,376,840 barrels. The daily capacity of 
Kansas City flour mills is 14,250 barrels. The daily capacity of Omaha flour mills 
(Ex. 19) is 2,000 barrels. 

Exhibit 25 shows the railroad mileage in the Missouri River States for the period 
1890 to 1913. During the period 1910 to 1913, the Missouri River States gained 4.5 
per cent, whereas the gain in the United States was 0.8 per cent. 

Exhibit 26 shows the actual rail movement of carload freight traffic, classified, east- 
bound and for export from Missouri River cities, and via them, when originating in 
the States of Kansas and Nebraska. The tonnage given “from and via Kansas City, ” 
is confined to traffic originating at Kansas City, and in the State of Kansas and southern 
Nebraska (south of Platte River). Attention is called to the right-hand margin, 
where the percentage of each kind of freight is shown. Grain, grain products, hay and 
broom corn comprises over 73 per cent of the total tonnage. 

Page 2 of this exhibit shows the actual railroad tonnage and freight revenue of traffic 
exclusive of live stock, dressed or fresh meats, and packing-house products in the year 
1906, originating at and destined to lower Missouri River cities, the State of Kansas 
and southern Nebraska. The actual eastbound and for-export-tonnage for the year 
1914 is given. Upon the actual 1906 tonnage and revenue, and the actual eastbound 
and for-export-tonnage in 1914, have been projected westbound tonnage for 1914, and 
the east and westbound freight revenue for 1914. 

Of the total east and west tonnage, through the lower Missouri River cities, in 1906, 
of 3,759,819 tons, it was shown (Appendix C, H. Doc. 1120, 60th Cong., 2d sess.) that 
the tonnage to, from and through Kansas City was 2,652,318 tons. This was limited 
to traffic to and from Kansas City, the State of Kansas and southern Nebraska via 
Kansas City. Attention is directed to the eastbound actual tonnage of the railroads 
in 1914 from Kansas City, State of Kansas and southern Nebraska, of 2,530,715 tons, 
which approximated 95.4 per cent of the total east and west tonnage in 1906. The 
figures just discussed do not include the traffic moving through Kansas City, from 
and to Oklahoma, Texas, New Mexico, Colorado and beyond. It was estimated, in 
1906 (Appendix C, H. Doc. 1120, 60th Cong., 2d sess.), that the addition of this traffic 
would double the figures given as to Kansas City, the State of Kansas and southern 
Nebraska. 

The total tonnage, including the southwest, Colorado and beyond, moving via Kan¬ 
sas City by rail, in 1906 was estimated to aggregate 5,000,000 tons. In 1914, the traffic 
from and to Kansas City, the State of Kansas, and southern Nebraska via Kansas 
City, of these same railroads, amounted to 4,629,074 tons. Using the 1906 estimate 
and plussing this figure with the traffic to and from the southwest, Colorado and be¬ 
yond, results in a total of 9,258,148 tons, moving to, from, and via Kansas City only. 

A further computation was made on this exhibit to show that if 20 per cent of the 1914 
rail tonnage to and from Kansas City and the State of Kansas and southern Nebraska, 
via Kansas City, had been transported on the Missouri River, we would have had 
925,815 tons (stated 1,087,815 tons in error). In the year 1922, using the past eight 
years as a basis of projection, this would be 1,237,351 tons. Then doubling the fig- 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 93 


urea to include the southwestern traffic and to and from Colorado and beyond, moving 
via Kansas City, would show a grand total of 2.474,702 tons for river transportation. 
This deals only with the actual traffic estimated on the 20 per cent basis to move via 
the river. 

Exhibits 27 to 34, inclusive, show in detail the movement of railroad freight traffic 
and revenue to and from the lower Missouri River cities and via them to and from 
the State of Kansas and southern Nebraska in the years 1901 to 1906. inclusive. 

Exhibit 35 shows the freight earnings on eastbound rail traffic from and via Kansas 
City for the year 1914, taken from Exhibit 26, and based upon the earnings which 
would accrue under the rates as shown in Exhibit 35. Through rates from Kansas 
and southern Nebraska were not used, but only the rate from Kansas City. To illus¬ 
trate, upon traffic described in Exhibit 26, destined for the southeast, the basing rates 
from Kansas City to Ohio River crossings, Thebes and Cairo were taken, and the 
revenue computed upon those rates, it being assumed that the river would handle 
the traffic direct or with its water connections to those Ohio River crossings. 

The total freight revenue of the rail carriers from this computation upon the selected 
commodities, excluding live stock and its products, was $5,741,158.70. Assuming 
that the rail rates would be subject to reductiou in competition with the river, so 
that 100 per cent of the traffic would be subject to a saving in transportation charges, 
but assuming that the reductions by rail might be only 50 per cent of the reductions 
made by the river lines (80 per cent of rail rates being present basis), or only 10 per 
cent, the resultant reduction in this rail traffic would, for 1914, have been $574,115.87. 

A further illustration may be taken. The railroad traffic as enumerated in Exhibit 
26, to and from Kansas City via Kansas City to and from the State of Kansas and 
southern Nebraska, during 1914, aggregated 92.11 per cent of the total traffic to and 
from all lower Missouri River cities and via them to and from the State of Kansas 
and southern Nebraska. This percentage of the eastbound revenue would allocate to 
Kansas City and the Kansas City route traffic $5,147,303.20. Ten per cent of this 
figure results in $514,730.32. 

Adding the westbound traffic in either of the above illustrations, would run the 
1914 saving in transportation charges up to substantially $1,000,000 or more, if the 
river had been in effective competition with the rail lines and had carried only 20 per 
cent of the existing traffic. Again it should be noted that this comprehends only the 
traffic east and west, originating at and destined to Kansas City, and via Kansas City 
to and from Kansas and southern Nebraska. The southwestern traffic, upon the 
previous estimate made in 1908, in House Document 1120, when added, would sub 
stantially double this, and would have resulted in round numbers to a minimum sav¬ 
ing of $2,000,000 in freight charges in 1914. 

Exhibit 36 is a six-year record of typical western and southwestern trunk-line rail¬ 
roads. The figures given relate to system operation necessarily, as that is the only 
form in which these carriers make reports to the Interstate Commerce Commission. 
Assuming that the situation reflected by the system operations reliably portrays 
conditions in the territory between the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers, these data 
are offered to show that the railroads in this region have increased their average miles 
operated, substantially increased their density of freight traffic, or tons of freight 1 
mile per mile of line, have increased measurably the freight-train loading or average 
tons of freight per train-mile. Against these developments they have sustained very 
well the average distance haul of 1 ton, average .receipts per ton, and per ton 1 mile. 

Exhibit 37 shows the rates and tariff authorities upon grain, grain products, hay, 
and specified commodities from Kansas City to the points and territories of destina¬ 
tion shown in Exhibit 35, upon the traffic moving eastbound, and for export via the 
railroads in 1914, as per Exhibit 26. 

Exhibit 38 shows westbound rates on important manufactures from New York to 
Chicago via all rail, lake and rail, and canal and lake; also from Chicago to Kansas 
City. For illustration, the rates on coffee, New York to Chicago, are 30 cents per 
hundredweight for all-rail transportation, distance 912 miles; .23 cents, lake and rail, 
and 19 cents, canal and lake. The rate, Chicago to Kansas City, on coffee, for a dis¬ 
tance of 451 miles, is 27 cents. This is the fifth-class rate, Chicago to Kansas City. 
The New York-Chicago distance is 202 per cent of the Chicago-Kansas City distance, 
while the New York-Chicago rate is only 111 per cent of the Chicago-Kansas City rate. 
There is effective water transportation from Buffalo to Chicago, even though it has been 
for some 13 years dominated by competing rail carriers. There is likewise a through 
water route from New York to Chicago, via the Erie Canal, although that has been 
practically obsolete for a great many years. That an entirely new era has been en¬ 
tered upon and which may confidently be regarded as coming to early fruition in which 
a greater degree of competition between rail and water transportation between Great 
Lake ports and the east is clearly pointed by the present transforming of the Erie 
Canal into the New York Barge Canal, in conjunction with the recent decision of the 


94 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Interstate Commerce Commission in the application of lake lines under the Panama 
Canal act (33 I. C. C., 700), wherein divorcement of rail and lake lines has been ordered 
effective December 15, 1915. Attention is invited to the fact that class ratings are 
applicable upon much of the westbound traffic to the Missouri River as distinguished 
from special “commodity” ratings. Bjr Exhibit 38 it will be seen that fifth class of 
27 cents applies on 6 of the 11 commodities shown, or 59.5 per cent of the total. 

Exhibit 39 shows the rates on class traffic from New York to Chicago for the years 
1888 and 1915 via all-rail routes, and for the years 1901 and 1913 via rail-lake and 
canal-lake routes, respectively. Also the rates Chicago to Minneapolis and Kansas 
City for the years 1890 and 1915. The all-rail distance, New York to Chicago, is 912 
miles, first-class; 78.8 cents; the distance Chicago to Kansas City is 451 miles, first- 
class, 80 cents. The New York-Chicago all-rail rates were advanced 5 per cent in 1914. 
Prior to this advance the 75-cent first-class scale had been in effect 27 years. That 
scale was as high and higher, with varying temporary exceptions, as the rates thereto¬ 
fore in effect for a period of 12 years. On April 6, 1875, the all-rail rates New York to 
Chicago were, first-class 60 cents, second class 55 cents, third class 50 cents, fourth 
class 40 cents. In the interim the rates went down to as low as 15 cents, first class, and 
10 cents, fourth class, in effect July 28, 1876. This refers to a period of rate wars and 
may be said to have not resulted from water transportation on the lakes. After the 
rail lines secured control of the lake boat lines in 1902, however, the rail-lake rates 
were increased from 59 cents to 62 cents, first class, and corresponding increases in the 
lower classes, except classes fifth and sixth. In 1906 the Hepburn amendment to the 
commerce act gave the Interstate Commerce Commission power to suspend the opera¬ 
tion of proposed increased rates pending inquiry into the reasonableness and propriety 
thereof. Since then the rail-lake lines have made three different and distinct efforts 
to increase the rail-lake rates, terminating with a recent hearing before the commission 
under its Investigation and Suspension Document No. 615. It can not, therefore, be 
said that the rail-lake rates since 1901 have reflected a natural relation with all-rail 
rates, due to the domination and operation of the lake lines by the rail lines. 

Attention is invited to the rates from Chicago to Minneapolis and Kansas City during 
the period 1890 to 1915. The rates to Minneapolis have remained stationery. In 
1890 Kansas City enjoyed as low rates as Minneapolis from Chicago on all classes 
except “B,” “D,” and “E,” which were 2 cents higher on “B,” and 1 cent higher on 
“D ” and “E.” Third class was 3 cents less. The Kansas City 60-cent first-class scale 
was advanced gradually to the present scale, which has been in effect since July 1, 
1894, and whereas in 1890, the rates Chicago to Minneapolis and Kansas City were on 
substantial parity for practically equal rail-haul distance, the rates are against Kansas 
City to-day by 20 cents first class, 15 cents second class, 5 cents third class, 7 cents 
fourth class, 7 cents fifth class, 7 cents class “A,” 7 cents class “B,” 5 cents class “C,” 
4.5 cents class “D,” and 3 cents class “E.” 

There is no difference in the rail traffic and transportation conditions between 
Chicago and Minneapolis on the one hand, and Chicago and Kansas City on the other, 
that would establish any higher rates per mile to Kansas City. Lake transportation 
to ports on Lake Superior have had an influence, however, extending beyond Duluth 
160 miles to Minneapolis. The absence of water transportation of an effective sort to 
Kansas City, or closer than Chicago, 450 miles distant, has resulted in increased and 
materially higher rates than in effect over 25 years ago. 

Exhibit 40 shows the proportional rates on grain, Minneapolis and Kansas City to 
Chicago, and Chicago to New York; also the rates on grain from representative points 
in Kansas and Nebraska to Chicago. The rate on wheat, Chicago to New York for 
912 miles, all-rail, is 18.8 cents, and from Kansas and Nebraska points to Chicago, an 
average distance of 726 miles, an average of 25.36 cents. The Chicago-New York 
distance is 125.6 per cent of the Kansas and Nebraska to Chicago distance. The rate 
Chicago to New York is 74 per cent of the average rate from Kansas and Nebraska to 
Chicago. 

Exhibit 41 shows the lake rates on grain and products from Chicago to Buffalo for 
the season of 1914. The average rate on grain was around 1 cent per bushel. It was 
estimated in Maj. Schulz’s report in 1908, House Document 1120, above referred to, 
that grain should be transported on the improved Missouri River from Kansas City 
to St. Louis for 1 cent per bushel. 

Exhibit 42 shows the movement of grain from Chicago during 1914, via the Lakes 
and the eastern and southeastern railroads. The movement by lakes of wheat was over 
200 per cent of the combined tonnage via eastern and southeastern rail lines, and the 
volume of flour via the lakes was 75 per cent of the combined movement via railroads. 

Exhibit 44 is a statement of the tonnage which moved through the Panama Canal 
from Atlantic and Gulf ports to Pacific coast ports during the period September 27, 
1914, to September 5, 1915. The total cargo, except coal, aggregated 822,517 tons. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 95 


Exhibits 45 and 46 show in detail the reductions which have already been made in 
the transcontinental rail rates, and as proposed, upon representative commodities, 
in competition for this tonnage. Particular attention is directed to these reductions 
which apply from all territory east of the Rocky Mountains, and which the rail car¬ 
riers have made and are proposing to make in pursuing the comparatively small 
tonnage originating in eastern and southern territory within the zone of canal route 
competition. 

Exhibit 47 shows in detail the tonnage of representative boat lines on the Great 
Lakes for the year 1914. Of this eastbound tonnage, over 86 per cent comprised 
grain, grain products, and hay. 

Exhibit 48 is a comparison made by Mr. A. W. Mackie, secretary of the Kansas 
City Missouri River Navigation Co., between the efficiency estimatea to be obtained 
from an investment of $1,000,000 in carrying craft, suitable to the improved Missouri 
River, and the demonstrated efficiency of the Great Lakes fleets, as per exhibits of 
the lake lines, by Mr. Fell, in Investigation and Suspension Docket 615, recently 
heard by the Interstate Commerce Commission. Under this computation, $1 of 
investment would transport 0.29 ton on the Great Lakes, and 0.64 ton from Kansas 
City to St. Louis, resulting in gross earnings of the lake lines of $0.45, and of the Mis¬ 
souri River $1.22. The gross earnings per ton via the lakes lines are estimated as 
$1.53 and via the Missouri River $1.75. 

In conclusion. —The reexamination called for by the act of Congress probably was 
not intended to embrace an opinion as to whether Congress would or would not pro¬ 
ceed in an economical manner. The questions involved in such reexamination are 
necessarily these: 

First. Has the progress of the work thus far shown that the engineering plan is 
feasible and the estimate of cost approximately correct? 

Second. Has there been any substantial ana permanent change in the commercial 
aspects of the question since July 25, 1912, which destroys the value of the evidence 
of commercial importance upon which Congress then based its adoption of the project? 

The district officer’s finding in section 4 of report answers the first question and 
confirms your previous recommendations. 

In answer to the second question, we submit the increased traffic, increases in popu¬ 
lation, products of soil, mine, industry, and commerce since the 1908 reports to Con¬ 
gress, confirmed in 1911, as the best of evidence justifying and requiring a finding that 
the commercial possibilities of the river were never so favorable, and the recommen¬ 
dations of this honorable board that the existing Missouri River project should in no 
wise be abandoned, but, on the contrary, promptly completed as vitally necessary 
in the larger interests of commerce and transportation. 

What the 'proposed abandonment of the river improvement means. —A. It means a loss 
to the Government of the work already done and the appropriations already expended. 
(See sec. 15, district officer’s report.) 

B. It means a loss of a large portion of the investment of the boat line in its fleet 
and all of its ip vestments in the warehouses and terminals. 

C. It means a loss of the plant assembled for the purpose of prosecuting work. 
This is approximately $600,000. 

D. It means a loss to the taxpayers of Kansas City of the amount invested out of 
the proceeds of city bonds for the construction of a municipal wharf and terminal. 

E. It means a scattering of the contractors now operating upon the river and a 
removal of their equipment, with a result in delay and increased expense of again 
assembling a sufficient force of reliable contractors and laborers. 

Respectfully submitted. 

The Commercial Club of Kansas City. 

Addenda. 

(Kansas City Times, October 16,1915.] 

Cheered his river views—Secretary McAdoo said the Missouri's use was vital—He praised 

Kansas City's enterprise in proving the stream's practicability , and said: 11 Congress 

should increase its aid every year.” 

Kansas City shamed Congress out of the idea of discontinuing the improvement of 
the Missouri; and Congress should have been shamed out of it. 

You should be ready to send your products through the Missouri and Mississippi 
Rivers to the open sea. * * * As those valleys prosper, the whole country 

Missouri River acquired a new champion yesterday in the person of William 
G. McAdoo, Secretary of the Treasury. As the guest of Kansas City, Mr. McAdoo 


96 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


took note of the city’s water enterprise and “came through” with a timely and ring¬ 
ing indorsement that brought cheers from the public affairs committee of the Com¬ 
mercial Club at the Hotel Baltimore luncheon yesterday. 

“You enterprising men of this city proved your faith in the practicability of navi¬ 
gating the Missouri River when you subscribed a big fund and actually navigated 
the river with boats and barges. Kansas City shamed Congress out of the idea of 
discontinuing the improvement of the Missouri; and Congress should have been 
shamed out of it. 

KANSAS CITY AND THE CANAL. 

“We now have the Panama Canal. Its construction virtually is the extension of 
the trade of Kansas City by way of the Missouri River, the Mississippi River, and the 
open sea to the west coast of South America. You men are not engaged in any foolish 
enterprise. You seek not to run deep-sea vessels up the Missouri River to the port 
of Kansas City. You are operating boats and barges, the practical things, and in 
this way you may connect with the big ocean vessels at New Orleans, and thus reach 
the open markets of the world.” 

WHY KANSAS CITY GOT THE BANK. 

Mr. McAdoo was again interrupted with loud applause when he said: 

“I am going to make a frank confession to-day to you men of Kansas City. I was 
a member of the commission that took testimony as to the respective commercial 
importance of the cities of the United States with a view to apportioning the Federal 
Reserve banks. When we left Washington on that long journey of inspection and 
investigation, which, in fact, was to be a survey of the trade routes of the country, 
I am frank to say we did not have Kansas City on our minds as even a prospect. 

“But after our visit to Kansas City and the accompanying awakening we expe¬ 
rienced on surveying Kansas City and its territory, we could not get Kansas City off 
of our minds. So we located here your present Federal Reserve Bank.” 

Mr. McAdoo spoke at length on the improvement of the Missouri River. 

RIVERS A NATIONAL SUBJECT. 

“It’s not a political subject,” he said. “It’s a problem in economics. The pros¬ 
perity of the whole country rests upon the development of its foreign trade, and you 
Kansas City men should be vitally interested in the export trade. You should be 
ready to send your products through the Missouri and Mississippi Rivers to the open 
sea. It’s the duty of the Government to appropriate the money necessary to make 
the improvements of the Missouri River that will make that possible. I believe 
Congress should increase each year the amount of appropriations to be spent in such 
worthy enterprises as the improvement of the Missouri River. Such an enterprise 
does not contribute alone to the increasing of the trade and commercial growth of 
Kansas City. It is vital to every industry in the Missouri and Mississippi Valleys; 
and as those valleys prosper, the whole country prospers. It is the duty of the Gov¬ 
ernment to foster any agency that is to better serve the needs and the prosperity of 
the people. It’s the duty of the citizenship to see that money thus appropriated is 
honestly and intelligently spent.” 

EXHIBITS. 

Recent Growth op Missouri River States in Population, Value of Farm 

Crops, Value of Farm Property, Production of Principal Grains, Value 

of Manufactured Products, and Production of Minerals. 


Exhibit 1 . — Population ( United States census). 


Missouri River 
States. 

1890 

1900 

1910 

Ohio River States. 

1890 

1900 

1910 

Missouri. 

2, 679,185 
1,428,108 
1,062,656 
1,912,297 
348, 600 
190,983 
142,924 
258, 657 

| 

! 3,106, 655 
1,470,495 
1,066,300 
2,231, 853 
401,570 
319,146 
243,329 
790,391 

3,293,335 

1, 690,949 
1,192,214 
2,224,771 
583, 888 
577, 056 
376,053 

1, 657,155 

Illinois .. 

3,826,352 
2,192,404 
3, 672, 329 
5,258,113 
762, 794 
1, 858, 635 
1, 767, 518 

4, 821, 550 
2, 516,462 
4,157,545 
6,302,115 
958, 800 
2,147,174 
2,020, 616 

5, 638,591 
2, 700,876 
4,767,121 
7, 665, 111 
1,221,119 
2,289,905 
2,184, 789 

Kansas. 

Indiana 

Nebraska. 

Ohio 

Iowa. 

Ponn<?yl vania 

South Dakota. 

North Dakota. 

Montana. 

West Virginia. 

Kentucky. 

Tpinn«<5<?Aft 

Oklahoma. 

Total 

Total. 

8,023,410 

9,639,749 

11,595,421 

19,338,145 

22,924,262 

26,467,512 




































Doc. 463, 64-1 



PJ 

W 

>> 

K 


£ 

& 

O 

cn 

co 


>* 

H 

HH 

O 

GO 

CO 

£ 

M 

o 

w k - 

O !* 
P5 5 
-4 
PQ Pi 


o 
o 

o 

HH 

e* 
h 

^ ° 
Q £ 
£ ^ 


c 

w 

PH 

!* 


◄ 

>-3 


<1 

5? 


P$ 

W 

H 


t* 


O 

CO 

< 

co 

55 

M 


Ph 

O 


co 

> 

H 

HH 

5> 



I 



















































. Doc. 463, 64-1. 



m 

o 

Pi 

◄ 

PQ 

s 

o 

Ph 

pH 

c 

o 

M 

a 

£ 

HH 

»-H 

Eh 

CZ) 


O 

£ 

HH 

>-i 

w 

> 

< 

Pi 

e 

o 

55 

M 

£ 

o 

HH 

►—I 

U1 


s-. 

3 

o 

;S 

3 

c3 

co 

C 

O 

o 

r» 


a 

© 

t-M 

CO 

bX5 

>—t 

• i-m 

T3 

c3 

O 


o 

bJO 

M 
• 1 

c3 

O 

c3 

r - 

«*-» 

c3 

co 


«*-< 

O 

>> 
• —1 
o 

C3 

o 

d 

CO 

c3 

C/1 

••—« 
O 

r*i 

co 

















Doc. 463, 64-1. 



NEW MUNICIPAL WHARF, WHARF HOUSE, AND BARGES. 
Showing track on which electrically operated hoist runs. 

























. Doc. 463, 64-1. 



SHOWING TRAVELING HOIST DEPOSITING LOAD AT WHARF HOUSE 

















MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 97 


Exhibit 1 . —Population ( Uuiled States census )—Continued. 
TOTAL POPULATION. 



1890 

1900 

1910 

Per cent of 
increase 
in 2 

decades. 

Missouri River States. 

8,023,410 
19,338,145 

9,639, 749 
22,924,262 

11,595,421 

26,467,512 

44.5 

36.3 

Ohio River States. 



GOVERNMENT CENSUS OF POPULATION. 


Kansas City, Mo.: 

1860. 

1870. 

1880. 

1890. 

1900. 

1910. 


4,418 
32,260 
55, 785 
132,716 
163, 752 
248,381 


Kansas City, Kans.: 

1860. 

1870. 

1880. 

1890. 

1900. 

1910. 


1,902 
2,940 
3, 200 
38,316 
51,418 
82,331 


Exhibit 2 .— Value of all farm crops (abstract of Thirteenth Census). 


Missouri River 
States. 

1899 

1909 

Ohio River States. 

1899 

1909 

Missouri. 

Kansas. 

Oklahoma. 

Nebraska. 

Iowa. 

South Dakota. 

North Dakota. 

Montana. 

Total. 

121,455,026 
113, 522, 693 
43, 759,824 
92,469,326 
195,552,547 
44,175,615 
54,040,817 
10,692,515 

220, 663, 724 
214,859,597 
133,454,405 
196,125,632 
314,666,298 
125,507,249 
180,635, 520 
29,714,563 

Illinois. 

Indiana. 

Ohio. 

Pennsylvania. 

West Virginia. 

Kentucky. 

Tennessee. 

Total. 

214,832, 706 
122,502,274 
156, 852,358 
126,994,141 
25, 696,189 
78,962, 845 
70, 745,242 

372,270,470 
204,209,812 
230,337,981 
166, 739,898 
40,374,776 
138,973,107 
120, 706,211 

675, 668,363 

1,415,626,988 

796,595, 755 

1,273,612, 255 


Per cent of increase: Missouri River States, 109.5; Ohio River States, 59.9. 


Exhibit 3. — Value of all farm property , Missouri River States. 
[Abstract of Thirteenth Census.] 


States. 

1890 

1900 

1910 

Per cent 
increase 
from 1890 

Miss niir ' ... 

$786,390,253 
706,664,141 
511,799,810 
12,221,020 
1,100,682,579 
145,527,556 
100,745,779 
60,135,102 

$1,033,121,897 
864,100,286 
747,950,057 
277,525,433 
1,834,345,546 
297,525,302 
255,266,751 
117,859,823 

$2,052,917,488 
2,039,389,910 
2,079,818,647 
918,198,882 
3,745,860,544 
1,166,096,980 
974,814,205 
347,828,770 


K an sas ..... 


'Mp'hraska . 


Oklahoma 


Iowa . 


South Dakota. 

North Dakota. 

M nnt.ana ....... 


Total. 

Total for United States. 

Per cent of entire country. 


3,424,166,240 
16,082,267,689 
21.29 

5,427,695,095 

20,439,901,164 

26.55 

13,324,925,426 
40,991,449,090 
32.56 

289.14 
154.9 


H. Doc. 463, 64—1-7 























































































98 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


Value of all farm property, Ohio River States. 


State. 

1890 

1900 

1910 

Per cent 
increase 
from 1890. 

Illinois. 

Indiana. 

Ohio. 

Pennsylvania. 

West Virginia. 

Kentucky. 

Tennessee. 

Total. 

Total for United States. 

Per cent of entire country. 

$1,477,759,187 
869,322,787 
1,195,688,864 
1,062,939,846 
178,961,330 
428,170,266 
312,891,650 

$2,004,316,897 
978,616,471 
1,198,923,946 
1,051,629,173 
203,907,349 
471,045,856 
341,202,025 

$3,905,321,075 
1,809,135,238 
1,902,694,589 
1,253,274,862 
314,738, 540 
773,797,880 
612,520,836 


5,525,733,930 
16,082,267,689 
34.36 

6,249,641,717 
20,439,901,164 
30.55 

10,571,483,020 
40,991,449,000 
25. 79 

91.3 

154.9 


Exhibit 4. — Wheat and corn production, in bushels, eight Missouri River States, by 

years, for eight years, 1907-1914, inclusive. 

[Abstract of Thirteenth Census.] 


States. 

1907 

1908 

1909 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

■Wheat. 

Com. 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Missouri. 

Kansas. 

Oklahoma. 

Nebraska. 

Iowa. 

South Dakota. 

North Dakota. 

Montana. 

Total. 

Total United 
States. 

29,212,000 
65,609,000 
8,631,000 
45,911,000 
7, 653,000 
32,480,000 
55,130,000 
4,003,000 

241,025,000 
155,142,000 
113,265,000 
179,328.000 
270, 220,000 
47,175,000 
3,080,000 
90,000 

22,260,000 
79,282,000 
15,265,000 
44,295,000 
8,068,000 
37,862,000 
68,428,000 
3,703,000 

203,634,000 
156,200,000 
122,239,000 
205,767,000 
287,456,000 
57,677,000 
3,856,000 
94,000 

28,562,000 
87,203,000 
15,680,000 
49,650,000 
7,446,000 
47,588,000 
90,762,000 
10,764,000 

213,840,000 
154,225,000 
101,150,000 
194,060,000 
289,800,000 
65,270,000 
6,045,000 
274,000 

248,629,000 

634,087,000 

1,009, 325,000 

2,592,320,000 

279,163,000 

664,602,000 

1,036,923,000 

2,668,651,000 

337,655,000 

683,335,000 

1,024,664,000 

2, 552,190,000 


States. 

1910 

1911 

1912 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Missouri. 

Kansas. 

Oklahoma. 

Nebraska. 

Iowa. 

South Dakota. 

North Dakota. 

Montana. 

Total. 

Total United 
States. 

25,958,000 
63,236,000 
25,542,000 
38,760,000 
11,174,000 
46,720,000 
38,500,000 
7,770,000 

247,500,000 

170,050,000 

91,760,000 

191,565,000 

343,761,000 

52,500,000 

2,940,000 

368,000 

36,110,000 
51,387,000 
8,97.6,000 
41,574,000 
10,622,000 
14,800.000 
73,200,000 
12,299,000 

192,400,000 
126,150,000 
36,888,000 
155,925,000 
305,350,000 
50,820,000 
7,250,000 
530,000 

23,750,000 
92,290,000 
20,096,000 
55,052,000 
12,850,000 
52,185,000 
143,820,000 
19,346,000 

243,904,000 

174,225,000 

101,878,000 

182,616,000 

432,021,000 

76,347,000 

8,758,000 

612,000 

257,660,000 

635,121,000 

1,100,444,000 

2,886,260,000 

248,968,000 

621,338,000 

875,313,000 

2,531,488,000 

419,389,000 

730,267,000 

1,220,361,000 

3,124,746,000 


States. 

1913 

1914 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Missouri. 

39,586,000 
86,983,000 
17,500,000 
62,325,000 
16,395,000 
33,975,000 
78,855,000 
20,673,000 

129,062,000 
23,424,000 
52,250,000 
114,150,000 
338,300,000 
67,320,000 
10,800,000 
882,000 

43,333,000 

177,200,000 

47,975,000 

68,116,000 

15,066,000 

31,566,000 

81,392,000 

18,356,000 

158,400,000 

108,225,000 

50,000,000 

173,950,000 

389,424,000 

78,000,000 

14,000,000 

1,400,000 

Kansas. 

Oklahoma. 

N ebraska. 

Iowa. 

South Dakota. 

North Dakota. 

Montana. 

Total. 

356,292,000 

763,380,000 

736,188,000 
2,446,988,000 

483,004,000 

891,017,000 

973,399,000 

2,672,804,000 

Total United States. 



Of the entire wheat crop of the United States for the eight years 46.7 per cent was grown in Missouri River 
States. 

Of the entire corn crop of the United States for the eight years 37.28 per cent was grown in Missouri River 
States. 



































































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 99 


Exhibit 5. —Principal grains for 1914 (bushels). 
[Yearbook of Department of Agriculture.] 


tates. 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Oats. 

Barley. 

Rye. 

Missouri. 

Kansas. 

Nebraska. 

Iowa. 

Oklahoma. 

South Dakota. 

North Dakota. 

Montana. 

Total. 

Total United States. 

Eight States (per cent). 

43,333,000 
177,200,000 
68,116,000 
15,066,000' 
47,975,000 
31,566,000 
81,392,000 
18,356,000 

158,400,000 
108,225,000 
173,950,000 
389,424,000 
50,000,000 
78,000,000 
14,000,000 
14,000,000 

25,800,000 
58,960,000 
69,600,000 
165,000,000 
30,250,000 
44,165,000 
64,904,000 
18,550,000 

120,000 
5,880,000 
2,656,000 
9,360,000 
175,000 
19,550,000 
28,275,000 
2,135,000 

238,000 
1,000,000 
1,952,000 
1,121,000 
96,000 
1,020,000 
2,240,000 
210,000 

483,004,000 
891,017,000 
54.2 

985,999,000 
2,672,804,000 
36.8 

477,229,000 

1,141,060,000 

41.8 

68,151,000 
194,953,000 
35 

7,877,000 
42,779,000 
18.4 


States. 

Buck¬ 

wheat. 

Flaxseed. 

Irish 

potatoes. 

Sweet 

potatoes. 

Hay 

(tons). 

Wool 

(pounds). 

Missouri. 

31,000 
16,000 
18,000 
110,000 

64,000 
270,000 
49,000 
190,000 

3,915,000 
4,464,000 
9,440,000 
12,642,000 
2,240,000 
5,670,000 
7,630,000 
5,180,000 

504,000 

550,000 

1,820,000 
2,492,000 
2,535,000 
4,071,000 
508,000 
850,000 
580,000 
1,750,000 

7,179,000 
1,403,000 
1,789,000 
5,319,000 
411,000 
3,547,000 
1,677,000 
30,177,000 

Kansas. 

Nebraska. 

Iowa. 

200,000 
612,000 

Oklahoma. 

South Dakota. 


2,400,000 
6,972,000 
2,560,000 

North Dakota. 



Montana. 



Total. 



175,000 

16,881,000 

1.03 

12,505,000 
15,559,000 
80.4 

51,181,000 

405,921,000 

12.6 

1,866,000 
56,574,000 
3.3 

14,656,000 

70,071,000 

20.9 

51,502,000 
247,192,000 
20.83 

Total United States... 
Eight States (per cent). 


Exhibit 6.— Yalue of manufactured products. 

[Abstract of Thirteenth Census.] 
MISSOURI RIVER STATES. 



1899 

1904 

1909 

Missouri _---. 

$316,304,000 
154,009,000 
8,134,000 
130,302,000 
132,871,000 
9,530,000 
6,260,000 
52,745,000 

$439,549,000 
198,245,000 
24,459,000 
154,918,000 
160,572,000 
13,086,000 
10,218,000 
66,415,000 

$574,111,000 
325,104,000 
53,682,000 
199,019,000 
259,238,000 
17,870,000 
19,137,000 
73,272,000 

ITaiKas ........ 

Oklahoma . 

"Nebraska . 


Pouth Daknta ..... 

N^rt.h Dakota .. 

M nn tana ... 

Total . 

810,155,000 
11,406,927,000 
7.10 

1,067,462,000 
14,793,903,000 

7.21 

1,521,433,000 
20,672,052,000 
7.36 

Total United States . 

Total of entire eonnt.rv Coer eenti___ 



OHIO RIVER STATES. 


Illinois. 

Indiana. 

Ohio. 

Pennsylvania. 

West Virginia. 

Kentucky. 

Tennessee. 

Total. 

Total United States. 

Total of entire country (per cent) 


$1,120,868,000 
337,072,000 
748,671,000 
1,649,882,000 
67,007,000 
126,509,000 
92,749,000 

$1,410,342,000 
393,954,000 
960,812,000 
1,955,551,000 
99,041,000 
159,754,000 
137,961,000 

$1,919,277,000 
579,075,000 
1,437,936,000 
2,626,742,000 
161,949,000 
223,754,000 
180,217,000 

4,142,758,000 
11,406,927,000 
36.32 

5,117,415,000 
14,793,903,000 
34.59 

7,128,950,000 
20,672,052,000 
34.48 




















































































100 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Exhibit 7.— Oil industry. 

The production of oil in the United States in 1913 was approximately 242,000,000 
barrels. Increase over 1912, 10 per cent. Of this increase 65 per cent was from 
Kansas and Oklahoma. Nearly one-half of the high grade oil produced in 1913 came 
from Kansas and Oklahoma and 30 per cent of the total of all grades of oil produced 
in the United States in 1913, representing 20 per cent of the world’s supply, came 
from these two States. 

The Mid-Continent field alone is producing 200,000 barrels per day, which is selling 
at $1.03 per barrel; 53,412 oil wells have been drilled in Kansas and Oklahoma; 11,494 
were drilled in 1913. The average cost of each well is $3,000. This shows an invest¬ 
ment of $34,482,000 for the year. This amount does not include cost of producing 
equipment and money paid to landowners for oil rights. 

There are 38 refineries operating in this field and there are 25 separate pipe lines, 
covering a total of 6,600 miles, used in transporting oil to these refineries. 

We have a ready market for every barrel of oil produced, and now have in tank in 
Kansas and Oklahoma fields 51,000,000 barrels for refining purposes, which represents 
twice the quantity available in all eastern fields combined. 

We have a greater undrilled proven area than all other fields in the United States 
combined. More money will be invested each year in this industry and the pro¬ 
duction of this territory will be greatly increased. 

Kansas City is the natural and logical center through which to clear this business. 

Authority statistics presented in Reserve Bank hearing at Kansas City before the 
Federal Reserve Bank Organization Committee January 23, 1914. 

Exhibit 8.— Petroleum. 

[Report of Geological Survey, 1913, p. 935.] 


State. 

1900 

1905 

1910 

1913 

Kansas 1 . 

Barrels. 
74,714 
6,472 

Barrels. 

12,013,495 

( 2 ) 

Barrels. 

1,128,668 
52,028,718 

Barrels. 
2,375,029 
63,579,384 

Oklahoma 1 ... 

Total. 

81,186 

12,013,495 

53,157,386 

65,954,413 
248,446,230 

Total for United States. 






i These are only States in Missouri River group credited with oil production. 2 included in above. 

Exhibit 9.— Cement. 

[Report of Geological Survey, 1913, p. 120.] 


State. 

1900 

1905 

1910 

1913 

Missouri. 

Barrels. 

Barrels. 

3,879,542 

230,686 

Barrels. 

4,455,589 

5,655,808 

Barrels. 

4,803,338 

3,374,836 

3,623,674 

Kansas. 

80,666 


Total. 




80,000 

4,110,228 

10,111,397 

11,801,848 

92,097,131 

Total for United States. 






Exhibit 10.— Coal. 

[Report of Geological Survey for 1913, p. 725.] 


State. 

1900 

1905 

1910 

1913 

Missouri. 

Short tons. 
3,540,103 
4,467,870 
1,922,298 

Short tons. 
3,983,378 
6,423,979 
2,924,427 

Short tons. 
2,982,433 
4,921,451 
2,646,226 

Short tons. 
4,318,125 
7,202,210 
4,165,770 

Kansas. 

Oklahoma. 

Nebraska. 

Iowa. 

5,202,939 

6,798,609 

7,928,120 

7,525,936 

South Dakota. 

North Dakota. 



399,041 

2,920,970 

495,320 

3,240,973 

Montana. 

1,661,775 

1,643,832 

Total. 

16,794,985 

21,774,225 

21,798,241 

26,948,334 


















































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 101 


Exhibit 11.— Lead. 

[Report of Geological Survey, 1913, p. 715.] 


State. 

1905 

1910 

1913 

Missouri. 

Short tons. 
104,058 

Short tons. 
161,659 
1,308 
1,805 

Short tons. 
152,430 
1,504 
3,214 

Kansas. 

Oklahoma. 


Total. 


104,058 

164,772 

157,148 
161,300 

Total for United States. 





Exhibit 12. — Zinc—Primary spelter . 


[Report of Geological Survey, 1913, p. 623.] 


State. 

1900 

1905 

1910 

1913 

Missouri. 

14,741 
62,136 

11,844 

114,287 

140,652 
10,220 
12,408 
2,297 

129,018 
9,956 
35,604 
6,397 

Kansas. 

Montana. 

Oklahoma. 



Total. 



76,877 

126,131 

165,577 

180,975 

337,252 

Total for United States. 






Exhibit 13. — Asphalt. 
[Report of Geological Survey, 1913, p. 539.] 


Oklahoma: 

1910 (short tons). 11,959 

1913 (short tons). 16,459 


Exhibit 14. —Surplus shipments, 1912 , of the 20 Missouri counties bordering on the 

Missouri River. 


County. 

Acres. 

Value, all 
farm prop¬ 
erty. 

Live stock. 

Grain. 

Hay, straw, 
alfalfa. 

Jackson . 

390,400 
257,280 
361,600 

S52,676,491 
26,403,929 

Head. 
96,223 
139,186 

Bushels. 

1,407,516 

711,230 

Tons. 

27,185 

Clay. 

2,336 

Ray . 

25,869,994 

59,739 

732,059 

1,601 

Lafayette. 

391,680 

449,920 

38,355,652 

34,058,032 

98, 558 

1,932,519 

986 

Carroll . 

84,486 

1,353,330 

5,388 

Saline . 

482,560 

43,550,165 
32,174, 790 

97,112 

942,300 

2,601 

Chariton. 

491,520 

60,819 

1,032,490 

2,976 

Howard.. 

299,520 

18,722,611 

38,268 
88,523 

408,558 

1,204 

Cooper.. 

357,120 

440,320 

26,776,438 

1,085,598 

314 

Boone . 

27,055,742 

116,088 

585,262 

1,698 

Monit.ean . 

262,400 
517,120 

14,008,465 

43,331 

437,411 

55 

Calloway. 

27,911,268 

67,934 

285,612 

714 

Cole . 

248,960 

10,204,156 

33,061 

300,387 

264 

Osape ... 

379,520 

10,172,886 

23,842 
58,204 

162,858 

11 

Montgomery. 

328,960 

18; 727,235 

340,723 

887 

GA_seonade . 

328,960 

8,338,566 

19,963 

676,097 

144 

W arren . 

262,400 

9,807,607 

9,216 

316,652 

153 

"Franklin ... 

562,560 

20,561,031 

42,633 

627,634 

507 

St. Charles ... 

342,400 

20,348,259 

34,783 

1,197,902 

6,900 

St. Lon is . 

31R680 

48,173,219 

33,900 

981,835 

22,000 




Total _ T .... 

7,660,480 

513,896,536 

1,248,969 

15,517,973 

77,924 

Tn tons __... 

199,969 

465,588 

77,924 






































































102 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


Exhibit 14 .—Surplus shipments, 1912, of the 20 Missouri counties hordering on the 

Missouri River —Continued. 


County. 

Tobacco. 

Seeds. 

Nuts. 

Mill 

products. 

Mine and 
quarry 
products. 

Forest 

products. 

Poul¬ 

try. 

Stone 

and 

clay 

prod¬ 

ucts. 


Tons. 

Tons. 

Tons. 

Tons. 

Tons. 

Feet. 

Tons. 

Tons. 

Jackson. 

37.8 

91.3 

1.7 

28,944.0 

230,480 

1,771,000 

1,274.0 

39,000 

Clay. 

251. 0 

117.0 

3.8 

601.0 

57,100 

249,000 

388.7 


Ray. 

6.0 


2.2 

227.0 

340,793 

27,100 

329.0 

840 

Lafayette. 

2.0 

22.5 

2.6 

21,594.8 

683,283 

608,000 

453. 5 

920 

Carroll . 

31.5 

253.5 

49. 2 

1,955.5 

95 

56,000 

1 375.8 


Saline. 

.5 

21.1 

3.5 

5,168.0 

210 

4,968,000 

697.0 

20 

Chariton. 

53.0 

192.2 

243.0 

713.0 

200 

260,000 

563.2 

760 

Howard. 

125.3 

4.5 

74.3 

3,497. 8 

64,872 

253,800 

728.3 

240 

Cooper. 

25.0 

38.4 

15.3 

3,308.0 

54,310 

429,000 

925.0 

460 

Boone. 

40.0 

1.0 

1.1 

161.0 

20,800 

780,000 

524.3 


Moniteau. 


2.4 


2,190.0 

'314 

33,000 

1,252.0 


Calloway. 

32.5 


1.2 

3' 060.3 

11,900 

691,300 

262.0 

14,700 

Cole. 


10.7 

1.5 

7,372.5 

6,737 

120,500 

296.0 

1,582 

Osage. 


18. 7 

1.2 

1,337. 6 

689i400 

973.5 


Montgomery. 


11.4 


'569.0 

7,804 

1,100,000 

888.2 


Gasconade. 


33.7 

6.2 

5,340.0 

34; 428 

491,500 

221.0 


Warren. 


3.6 

8.7 

' 232.0 

142 

812,000 

171.2 


Franklin. 


2.0 

65.4 

11,976.7 

19, 482 

4,304,100 

1,585.3 

420 

St. Charles. 


10.7 

28.6 

2,082. 5 

6,700 

538,600 

329.0 

7,980 

St. Louis. 

1.2 

3.5 

1.7 

255.0 

450,000 

150;000 

1,000.0 

420,185 

Total. 

605.8 

838.2 

511.8 

100,585. 7 

1,989,650 

18,522,300 

14,237 0 

487,107 

In tons. 

605. 8 

838.2 

511.8 

100,585. 7 

1,989,650 

17,652.8 

14,237.0 

487,107 


County. 

Packing¬ 

house 

products. 

Nurs¬ 

ery 

stock. 

Wool. 

Liquid 

products. 

Vegeta¬ 

bles, 

fresh. 

Fruits, 

fresh. 

Fruits 
and vege¬ 
tables, 
canned. 

Honey 

and 

sorghum. 


Tons. 

Tons. 

Tons. 

Gallons. 

Tons. 

Tons. 

Tons. 

Gallons. 

Jackson. 

161.0 

150.0 

28.0 

24,000 

8,331.5 

4,792.0 

7.8 

6,200 

Clay. 

57.5 

4.5 

56.6 

816,942 

2,334.8 

2,825.0 

45.7 

liOSO 

Ray. 

59.0 


10.0 

2,006 

7,987.5 

2 165.6 


390 

Lafayette. 

101.0 


15.8 

281 

' 76.0 

13 045.0 

225.0 

48 

Carroll. 

47.7 

2.0 

57.6 

244 

333.0 

7 406.0 

275.8 

555 

Saline. 

196.4 


61.0 

5 

37.4 

708. 0 

1.0 

258 

Chariton. 

32.0 


94.0 

3,000 

184.0 

423.0 

800 

Howard. 

32.2 


102.0 

8,615 

49.0 

6 449.0 

344 6 

308 

Cooper. 

33.7 

14.4 

34.3 

1,414 

34.6 

'981.0 

56.0 

254 

Boone. 

147.6 


163.5 

620 

75.8 

1 588.6 

191 2 

2 565 

Moniteau. 

33.8 


3.6 

195 

7 118.5 

100 0 

369 

Calloway. 

39.0 


77.8 

10 

11.8 

612.0 

10 4 

197 

Cole. 

13.8 


18.0 

10 

17 0 

52 0 

240 8 

88 

Osage. 

20.5 

3.6 

10.0 

103 

122.0 

65.2 

95.8 

120 

Montgomery. 

47.4 


50.4 

140 

22.0 

279.5 


972 

Gasconade.. 

57.0 

1.4 

9.9 

152,593 

4.5 

90.3 

1.3 

55 

Warren. 

23.0 


2.0 


9.7 

138 9 

1 4 

48 

Franklin. 

120.0 

362.6 

12.3 

139,000 

28.7 

388.6 

40.2 

310 

St. Charles. 

98.7 


12.2 

10 569 

1 301 0 

1 007 0 

3 0 

825 

St. Louis. 

130.0 

135.1 

4.2 

35,000 

42,950.0 

3,498.7 

7.5 

3,925 

Total. 

1,451.3 

673.0 

823.1 

1,194,747 

63,910.3 

41,573.9 

1,647.5 

19,337 

In tons. 

1,451.3 

673.0 

823.1 

4,181.6 

63,910.3 

41,573.9 

1,647.5 

77.3 












































































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 103 


Exhibit 14. — Surplus shipments, 1912, of the 20 Missouri counties bordering on the 

Missouri River —Continued. 


County. 

Eggs. 

Junk. 

Berries. 

Miscel¬ 

laneous. 

Cord- 

wood. 

Corn 

cobs. 

Walnut 

logs. 

Plate 

glass. 


Dozen. 

Tons. 

Crates. 

Tons. 

Cords. 

Tons. 

Tons. 

Sq. feet. 

Jackson. 

1,500,000 

1,260 

4,200 

350 

15,000 




Clay. 

1,091,100 

420 

955 

665 

l'lOO 




Ray. 

' 969,760 

320 

110 

45 

'444 




Lafayette. 

1,002,720 

160 

150 

1,513 

492 




Carroll. 

1,320,420 

120 

439 

120 

60 




Saline. 

'942,550 

15 

83 

2,351 

60 

2 



Chariton. 

998' 460 

140 


83 

1,514 




Howard. 

956,100 

80 

6,872 

75 

108 




Cooper. 

l,21l'670 

280 

175 

245 

3,116 

1,534 



Boone. 

' 988', 890 

320 

54 

325 

2'036 

20 

155,000.0 


Moniteau. 

1,271,750 



9 

1 020 




Calloway. 

' 490,560 

180 

10 


48 




Cole_ “ . 

306,540 

380 

487 

1,740 

2.784 




Osage. 

1,642' 860 

80 

18 

l' 443 

5,520 




Montgomery. 

2.120,430 

160 

139 

26 

72 




Gasconade.. 

l' 003' 140 

20 


20 

1,176 




W arren. 

' 475' 260 

60 

158 

20 


260 



Franklin. 

1,228'800 

360 

87 

205 

2,016 


1,001.0 


St. Charles. 

' 403', 550 

280 

294 

176 

' 168 


115.5 


St. Louis. 

1,500' 000 

560 

306,200 

80 

5,000 _ 

280 


2,295,265 

Total. 

21,924,560 

5,195 

320, 431 

9,491 

41,734 

2,096 

156,116.5 

2,295,265 

In tons. 

14,732 

5,195 

5,287 

9,491 

62,601 

2,096 

156,116.5 

1,708.9 


Grand total, 3,726,234.7 tons. 

These counties contain an acreage under cultivation of 7,660,480, of the value of $513,896,536. This is not 
value of “land,” but of “all farm property.” 

The figures are official, from the Missouri Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

The figures for 1915 will show an increase. 

The movement of this freight by river depends upon the establishment of landing and terminal facilities 
at local points. This is now proceeding rapidly under the encouragement of continuous improvement 
of the river. 


Recent Gain of Missouri River Cities in Grain and Products and Hay Ship¬ 
ments, Commercial Development, Industrial Development, Live Stock 
Transactions, and Value of Manufactured Products. 

Exhibit 15. — Shipments from Kansas City for the past eight years. 

[Kansas City Board of Trade annual reports.] 


Year. 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Kaffir corn. 

Oats. 

Rye. 

Barley. 

Total. 

Hay. 

Flour. 

1907. 

Bushels. 

28.864.500 
27,566,000 

25.272.500 
30.446.200 

Bushels. 

12,644,500 

7,097,800 

9,357,550 

15.202.200 

Bushels. 
No record. 

Bushels. 

7,413,000 

Bushels. 
76,650 

Bushels. 

179,300 

48,400 

Bushels. 

49,177,950 

Tons. 

97,032 

Barrels. 

1,820,250 

1908. 

No record. 

4,053,000 

52,800 

38,818,000 

55,488 
40,264 

2,337,750 

1909. 

No record. 

5,853,000 

53,900 

123,200 

40,660,150 

2,205,450 

1910. 

No record. 

4,261,400 
4,576,200 

52,800 

258,700 

50,221,300 

76,188 

2,177,000 

1911. 

17,980,000 14,075,600 
30,665,400 13,637,950 
21,622,800 12,860,000 
57.452.650 16.495.250 

1,208,928 

1,769,426 

70,400 

375,200 

38,196,328 

83,424 

1,515,500 
1,827,250 

1912. 

5', 297,200 
7,707,100 
8,494,900 

80,300 

111,600 

51,561,876 

67,392 

1913. 

1,747,000 

242,200 

44,800 

44,223,900 

82,512 
75,456 

2,038,250 

1914. 

780,000 

218,900 

147,000 

83,588,700 

1,771,500 










Exhibit 16. — Omaha shipments. 
[Report of Omaha Grain Exchange, 1914.] 


Year. 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Oats. 

Rye. 

Barley. 

Total. 

1907 . 

Bushels. 

9,637,000 

11,4.50,000 

6,511,000 

Bushels. 

19,026,000 

Bushels. 

14,827,500 

Bushels. 
187,000 

Bushels. 

133,000 

Bushels. 
43,810,500 

1908 . 

10,325,000 

12,958,500 

168,000 

160,000 

35,061,500 

1909 . 

17,933,000 

9,553,000 

185,000 

375,000 

34,557,000 

1910 . 

5,482,000 

8,173,100 

12,180,600 

16,938,000 

16,696,000 

19,707,000 

8,098,000 

168,000 

206,000 

33,661,000 

1911 . 

16,459,000 

8,222,000 

50,000 

728,000 

33,630,100 

1912 . 

15,913,300 

14,013,000 

56,000 

318,000 

42,480,900 

1913 . }. . 

26,526,500 

16,173,000 

304,000 

85,000 

60,026,500 

1914 . 

31,927,500 

18,030,000 

512,000 

69,000 

67,234,500 

















































































































104 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


Exhibit 17.— Hay. 


Kansas City is the largest market and distributing point for hay in the world. 

Is the largest primary alfalfa market. 

Is the logical gateway from a railroad and geographical standpoint for the move¬ 
ment of the alfalfa produced in the seven greatest alfalfa-growing States, namely, 
Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Montana, Oklahoma, and Wyoming. 

Has facilities for properly inspecting and handling 700 cars of hay and alfalfa per 
day. 

Hay receipts for five years: 


Year. 

Cars. 

Tons. 

Value. 

1910. 

30,373 
33,770 

364,476 

$2,551,332 
3,309,460 
3,545,640 

1911 . 

472^ 780 

1912 . 

36,180 
32,353 

506; 520 

1913. 

452,942 

3;i70;594 

2,121,924 

1914. 

26^341 

303; 132 



Authority: Statistics presented in reserve bank hearing at Kansas City before the 
Federal Reserve bank organization committee January 23, 1914. 


Exhibit 18. —Statement showing grain elevators and storage capacity in bushels, year 

1915, at Kansas City. 

[Authority, Kansas City Board of Trade.] 


Name of elevator. 

Storage 

capacity. 

Name of elevator. 

Acme. 

75,000 

Bulte Mills. 

Alton. 

300,000 

Globe Mill. 

Dixie. 

60,000 

R. E. Kidder Flour Mills . 

Elevator A. 

5,500, 000 

Ismert-Hincke Milling Co 

Elevator B. 

'400,000 

Kelley Milling Co... 

Empire. 

350,000 

Kemper Mills... 

Frisco. 

600,000 

K. C. Seed & Grain Co 

K.C.S. 

800,000 

Ransom’s Warehouse 

Kansas-Missouri. 

2,000,000 

The Southwestern Milling Go 

C.G. W. 

1,250,000 

Weston Warehouse. . 

Memphis. 

'450, 000 

Zenith Mills. 

Milwaukee. 

2, 900, 000 

Katy Mills. 

Murrav. 

1, 500, 000 

Olive St. Elevator. 

Rock Island. 

' 100, 000 

Schilling Warehouse 

Rosedale. 

150,000 

Imperial Mill & Warehouse 

Russell. 

50; 000 

Kornfalfa Feed Milling Go 

M..K.&T. 

40,000 

Norris Elevator. 

Terminal. 

2,500,000 

Moss Grain Co. 

Wabash. 

'350,000 


Atlas Oats Co. 

25,' 000 

Total. 





Storage 

capacity. 


225,000 
50,000 
120,000 
270,000 
400,000 
30,000 
50,000 
200 , 000 
300, 000 
25,000 
50, 000 
100,000 
20,000 
25,000 
80,000 
20,000 
900,000 
50,000 


22,315,000 






























































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 105 


Exhibit 19 .—Statement showing grain elevators and storage capacity in bushels, year 

1915, Omaha. 

[Omaha Grain Exchange Annual Report, 1914.] 


Operator. 

Location. 

Capacity 

(bushels). 

Omaha Elevator Co. 

Council Bluffs, Iowa 

1,500,000 
1,250,000 
800,000 
600,000 
600,000 
450,000 
400,000 
350,000 
300,000 
250,000 
175,000 
125,000 
125,000 
100,000 
75,000 
60,000 
40,000 

Nye-Schneider-Fowler Grain Co. 

Omaha, Nebr.. 

Trans-Mississippi Grain Co. 

Council Bluffs, Iowa. . 

Merriam & Millard Co., A. 

Omaha, Nebr. 

Updike Elevator Co... 

South Omaha, Nebr. 

Hblmquist Elevator Co. 

Omaha, Nebr. 

Nebraska-Iowa Grain Co. 

Gibson Station (Omaha) 

Crowell Elevator Co. 

Omaha, Nebr 

Gate City Malt Co. 

South Omaha, Nebr .. 

Cavers-Sturtevant Co. 

Council Bluffs, Iowa.. 

Van Wickle Grain & Lumber Co. 


Maney Milling Co. 

Omaha, Nebr. 

Merriam & Millard Co.,C. 

Council Bluffs, Iowa. 

M.C. Peters Mill Co. 

South Omaha, Nebr.. 

Iowa Elevator Co. 

Council Bluffs, Iowa. 

Omaha Alfalfa Milling Co. 

Omaha, Nebr. 

J. F. Twamley Son & Co. 

.do. 

Total capacity. 


7,200,000 




MILLING FACILITIES. 

[Reports of Kansas City Board of Trade and Omaha Grain Exchange.] 

Maney Milling Co.: Flour capacity, 1,500 barrels per day. 

Updike Milling Co.: Flour capacity, 500 barrels per day. 

M. C. Peters Mill Co.: Alfalfa meal capacity, 600 tons per day. 

Omaha Alfalla Milling Co.: Alfalfa meal capacity, 500 tons per day. 

Exhibit 20. —Statement showing development of Kansas City, Mo., since 1905. 

[Source, Kansas City Board of Trade.] 



1905 

1911 

1912 

1913 

1914 

Assessed valuation. 

1197,128,370 

$166,792,892 

$177,816,892 

$188,636,451 

$195,214,683 

Citv receipts. 

$1,385,000 
$1,385,000 
$5,036,900 
$36,709,300 
4,441 
$10,917,024 
$1,400,838. 46 
296,481,883 
$935,559. 47 
i $10,901,610 
$1,197,905,556 
69,599,500 
4,812,422 

$2,650,000 

$2,800,000 

$2,900,000 

$2,825,000 

City expenditures. 

$2,650,000 
$3,785,000 
$40,590,029 
4,638 

$2,800,000 

$3,577,000 

$38,557,563 

4,544 

$12,396,328 

$2,900,000 

$4,177,000 

$31,147,116 

$2,825,000 

$4,177,000 

$24,503,685 

3,253 

$10,204,970 

$2,997,307.87 

Municipal debt. 

Real estate transfers . 

Building permits. 

3,719 

Cost buildings erected. 

$13,310,791 

$10,578,162 

Post-office receipts. 

$2,421,541.82 

$2,499,411.24 

443,533,287 

$2,805,726.82 
377,507,152 
$1,793,094.34 

Mail matter handled. 

404,502,979 
$1,844,586. 62 

415,257,867 

Internal-revenue receipts. 

$1,756,427.62 
$22,250,982 
$2,713,027,916 
72,991,900 
5,839,616 

$2,412,717.64 

Banking capital. 

$21,934,944 
$2,578,730,359 
50,689,628 
6,332,409 

$23,170,457 
$2,850,362,611 
68,588,950 
5,664,580 

$23,305,907 

$3,015,810,567 

Bank clearings. 

Bushels grain handled. 

105,231,050 

Packing animals slaughtered- 

4;910i411 


iIncludes surplus and undivided profits, 1905 and subsequent year, 







































































106 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


Exhibit 21. — Live-stock transactions , 1914, at principal markets. 
[Statistical Abstract United States, 1914, pp. 293-294.] 


Received at— 

Cattle and 
calves. 

Hogs. 

Sheep. 

Total 

head. 

Kansas City. 

1,956,651 
938,817 
355,535 
367,917 

2,264,805 
2,258,620 
1,725,366 
1,256,679 

2,002,042 
3,113,889 
830,256 
403,927 

6,223,498 

6,311,326 

2,911,157 

2,028,523 

Omaha... I. 

St. Joseph. 

Sioux City. 

Total for Missouri River cities. 

Wichita. 

3,618,920 

7,505,470 

6,350,114 

17,474,504 

201,836 
278,470 
442,738 
2,601,495 
1,040,957 
585,165 
289,762 
110,332 
344,245 

418,213 
428,260 
256,636 
6,618,166 
2,558,825 
1,589,630 
921,204 
670,351 
2,099,787 

25,899 
35,708 
692,247 
5,378,345 
749,293 
794,739 
444,829 
295,026 
124,591 

645,948 
742,438 
1,391,621 
14,598,006 
4,349,075 
2,969,534 
1,655,795 
1,075,709 
2,568,623 

Oklahoma City. 

Denver. 

Chicago. 

St. Louis. 

St. Paul. 

Cincinnati. 

Cleveland. 

Indianapolis. 

Total other than Missouri River. 

Total all markets. 

Received at Missouri River points (per cent). 

5,895,000 

15,561,072 

8,540,677 

29,996,749 

9,513,920 
39.9 

23,066,542 
32.36 

14,890,791 

42.8 

47,471,253 

36.8 


Exhibit 22 .—Kansas City jobbing business. 


The sales of Kansas City merchants in thirty-odd lines during the year 1913, aggre¬ 
gating $201,875,000, were distributed, almost exclusively, in the States all or parts 
of which are included in the district outlined as Greater Kansas City’s natural banking 
territory, and on the following basis: 


Arkansas (5 per cent).§10,093,750 

Colorado (7 per cent). 14,131,250 

Kansas (32 per cent). 64,600,000 

Missouri (24 per cent). 48,450,000 

Nebraska (3£ per cent). 7,065,625 

STATEMENT 

Electrical equipment.. §5,500,000 

Machinery supplies. 2,500,000 

Fruits and vegetables. 5,000,000 

Butter and eggs. 5,000,000 

Sporting goods. 1,500,000 

Paint. 2,000,000 

Liquors and brewery products. 20,000,000 

Chemicals. 2,000,000 

Plumbing.. 4,000,000 

Drygoods. 13,000,000 

Auto mo biles. 28,000,000 

Automobile accessories. 5,000,000 

Agricultural implements and vehicles.. 36,000,000 

Hardware. 4,000,000 

Paper. 3,400,000 


New Mexico (1$ per cent). $3,028,125 

Oklahoma (21 per cent). 42,393.750 

Texas (6 per cent). 12,112,500 


Total (100 per cent). 201,875,000 

OF SALES. 

Cigars.$10,000,000 

Groceries. 18,000,000 

Drugs. 5,500,000 

Shoes. 6,000,000 

Furnishing goods. 500,000 

Furniture. 4,000,000 

Building materials. 4,000,000 

Plate and wind ow glass. 1,250,000 

Jewelry. 2,225,000 

Iron and steel. 2,000,000 

Clothing. 250,000 

China and glass ware. 500,000 

Miscellaneous. 10,759,000 


201,875,000 


These figures are fairly representative, but do not include many of the most exten¬ 
sive lines for the reason that those lines do a big business outside the bounds of the 
prescribed territory. 

Authority statistics presented in reserve-bank hearing at Kansas City before the 
Federal Reserve Bank Organization Committee, January 23, 1914. 






































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 107 


Exhibit 23. — Four-year growth Kansas City industrials. 
NEW FACTORIES, FISCAL YEAR 1911-12. 


Name. 

Address. 

Capital. 

Employ¬ 

ees. 

Southwestern Blaugas Co. 

Indep. Road and Blue Riven 
333 Southwest, Boulevard _ 

$500,000 

20,000 

59 

5 

Hydrozo Paint Manufacturing Co. 

Samuel Dodsworth Book Co. T. 

1121 Holmes Street. 


C. W. Daugherty Manufacturing Co. 

537 Grand Avenue. 



Anti-Toxin Serum Farm and Laboratory. 

Eighty-fifth and Holmes 
Streets. 

Twenty-first and Manches¬ 
ter. 

Thirty-first and Wyoming.. 



United States Stock Food Co. 

75,000 

15 

Stevens Grease & Oil Co. 

15 





NEW FACTORIES, FISCAL YEAR 1912-13. 


Prest-O-lite Co. 

King Foundry Co. (Kansas City Hay Press Co.) 
Kalamazoo Tank & Silo Co. 

Hooven & Allison. 

National Terra Cotta Co... s . 

Tarkio-Champion Feed Co. 

Illinois Silo Co. 

Baum Brass & Model Works. 

Burlington Overall Co. 

Edwards Metal Structures Co. 

Atlas Specialty Co. 

Linde Air Products Co. 

Cement Stave Silo Co. 

Diamond Concrete Stave Silo Co. 

Franklin Feather Co. 

Coca-Cola Co. (bottling plant). 

Missouri Staple Cement Products Co. 

.Armour & Co. (woolpulling plant). 

Automatic Machine Manufacturing Co. 

Jiffy-Jell Pure Food Co. 


Eleventh and Charlotte, 
North Kansas City. 

Foot Fourth Street Viaduct. 
Fifteenth and Charlotte, 
North Kansas City. 

North Kansas City. 

Sixteenth and Oakland. 

536 Live Stock Exchange.... 

North Kansas City. 

1908 Wyandotte. 

808 Broadway. 

4023 Mill Street. 

1212 East Ninth Street. 

North Kansas City. 

Cookson Avenue and the 
Blue. 

East Bottoms. 

8-10 East Third Street. 

Twenty-first and Grand. 

Blue valley. 

Kansas City, Kans. 

310-316 West Twentieth 
Street. 

1015 East Twenty-fifth Street 


$800,000 

12 




500 

51 

25-40 

25-50 

9 

70 

7 

50,000 

30,000 

200,000 

4,000 

50,000 

50,000 





6,000 

5,000 

10-100 

21 


35,000 

5,000 


250 

19 

14 


NEW FACTORIES, FISCAL YEAR 1913-14. 


Name. 

Capital. 

Employ¬ 

ees. 

Name. 

Capital. 

Employ¬ 

ees. 

T, O nl 1 pr fo C.n . . 



Leader Fly Trap Mfg. Co. 

1,000 

3 

oltiT-it inn TTot P.n 

$25,000 

100 

Geiger-Fishback Co. 




Sawyer Mfg. Co. 






Continental Mfg. Co. 

2,000 



40,000 

11 

Alpine Ice Co. 


JF P, "Fib at Ray P,o . 


Serum Plant, Armour Pack- 






ing Co. 






Moon Mfg. Co. 



Morris-Blodgett Drop Forge 



Oxygen Gas Co. 

100,000 

3 

Xt 'T'rwil Pa 

100,000 

40 

R. R. Allen & Co. 

3,000 

30 































































































108 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Exhibit 23. — Four year growth Kansas City industrials — Continued. 
NEW FACTORIES, FISCAL YEAR 1914-15. 


Name. 

Capital. 

Employ¬ 

ees. 

Philadelphia Quartz Co. 


10 

Great Western Toy & Nov¬ 
elty Co... 

835,000 

30 

San O Zone Chemical Co. 

2,000 

3 

Waxide Parchment Paper Co. 

50,000 

16 

Will Campbell Baking Co.... 

300,000 

95 

Clet^eland Steel Barrel Co. 

10,000 

20 

Associated Glass Workers. 

3,000 

10 

Berry-Wood Piano Co. (re¬ 
turned). 

24,000 

27 

P. W. Hanicke (Inc.). 

10,000 

20 

J. L. Jones Mfg. Co. (office 
412 N. E. Bldg.). 

25,000 

12 


Name. 

Capital. 

Employ¬ 

ees. 

McCargar Feed Mill Co. 


30 

Success Silo Co. 


Perfek Device Co. 

$10,000 

30,000 

100,000 

10 

52 

150 

Sweeney Tractor Co. 

Ideal Mfg. Co. (office 524 Mid¬ 
land Bldg.). 

Automatic Bookkeeping Reg¬ 
ister Co 

Kfl.usfl.s City Rfl.difl,tor Co 



Ffl.ckert, Shirt Co. 



Kansas City Tire & Rubber 
Co . 



TT T, T/ee Mer can til e Co. 







Exhibit 24.— Kansas City flour output. 


| Reports of Kansas City Board of Trade. Millers’ Almanac, 1915.] 

Barrels. 


1907 . 1,974,949 

1908 . 2,577,577 

1909 . 2.427,376 

1910 . 2,226,266 

1911 . 1,822,257 

1912 . 2,080,268 

1913 . 2,294,617 

1914 . 2,376,840 

Corn meal. 107,250 

Oatmeal. 23,460 

Total mill output, 1914.. 2,507,550 

Daily capacity of Kansas City mills. 14,250 


Value of manufactured products in Kansas City. 

Total gross 
value. 


1899. 1 #103,612,000 

1904. ' 131,046,000 

1909. 1 218,786,000 

1914. 2 319,428,000 


Recent Gain in Railroad Mileage in Missouri River States; Railroad 
Freight Tonnage To, From, and Through Missouri River Cities; Rail¬ 
road Freight Revenue To, From, and Through Missouri River Cities; 
Miles Operated, Density op Tonnage, Tons per Train-Mile, Average 
Distance Haul, Average Receipts per Ton-Mile and per Ton op Missis¬ 
sippi River-Missouri River Railroads. 


Exhibit 25.— Table showing increase in railroad mileage. 
[Page 263, Statistical Abstract of the United States.] 



1890 

1900 

1910 

1913 

Missouri. 

6,004.10 
8,806.45 
167.96 
5,295.35 
8,355.97 
2,485.89 
1,940.64 
2,181.04 

6,875.04 
8,719.36 
827.88 
5,684.85 
9,185.18 
2,849.83 
2,731.22 
3,010.32 

8,082. 74 
9,006.88 
5,980.22 
6,067.15 
9,754.68 
3,947.65 
4,201.07 
4,207.42 

8,153. 48 
9,257.08 
6,356.68 
6,142.17 
9,916.50 
4,205.80 
5,032.54 
4,497.29 

Kansas. 

O klahoma. 

Nebraska. 

Iowa. 

South Dakota. 

North Dakota. 

Montana. 

Total. 

25,237.40 

39,883.68 

58 

51,247.81 

28.5 

53,561.54 
4.5 

Eight States’ increase over preceding period (per cent).. 

Total, United States. 

Per cent. 

167,191.00 

198,964.00 

19 

249,992.00 
25.6 

251,984.00 

0.8 




1 United States Census Report, Thirteenth Decennial Census, 1910. 

2 State of Missouri Bureau of Labor Statistics. 





































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 109 


CO 

8 

Co 

8 

e 

e 

e 

co 

e 

-o 


-ss 

•s 

"O 

S 

CO 

*s 

?> 

• CP 

•£ 

i 

o 

co 

I 


SO 

<M 

H 

i—i 

23 

pp 

a 

x 


a. 

® 

d 

d 


o 

£ 


o 

0 

GQ 

4 


B 

B 

o 

O 


o 

£ 

-u 

3 

3 

x 

w 

3 

a 

•H 


o 

42 

-4-4> 

a 

■< 


n 

E-* 


a 

a .. 

5 ° 

® gq 

© CQ 


£ 

M 


« 

£ 

«5 

a 

o 

Ph 

Ph 


to H 23 

IS .2 o 

a-" 


'S.-T'S 03 

£' 5 fS 


' - CO 

C3 a) 0) 

3 83, 

ft -m p, 


~*H £ 

■ssss 

3ftg8 

co,Q 


, y P-< *, 

'p os a 
S^o 
d o h 

Kj W-H 


£§ g 

wjs 


a £ a 

O CO 03 

© <3 © 

CQ 042 


© Ip 

33 


•A . - t/T to to 

■P N Qj CM 

<- g 5 £ o 
,©.S 5 o o 
^-4242^ 


■O f k . 
|-o cj^ 

03 Z 3 <D o 

U C3 R 

" +o t£) 



133^1 

& 2 o o-S 

Ph S-° ft| 


_- V3 

<3 g Q< 
O g O 

a*3, 


(M 

o 

ft 


o® 
03 >-. fc, 

o - =3 


O 

O 


.a 


OOlNWOrf 
) CM N- <5* 05 

) t>- 00 oc ^ 


$1 


00 

a 


CO 02 
Tf CO 
Tjl CO 


W HCOHin 

CM CM to to CM 
00(NH 


O 

O) 

co 


O HTf 


S’ 


ss 


to uo 

CO 05 
CO L- 


oo 

CM CO 
l'- CO 


O »Q 
CO 
CM O 


^ O 05 
O CM 00 
O OO 

rH rH tO 


OOfNrf 

oc *o J - co 
00 04 CO 




05 ^ 00 05 oo 
rH 00 O rH 05 
HlO'tH 


CM iH 


00 O 
O -H 
CO ^ 

cmcm" 


00 00 
CO £- 
CM CM 


^ cm cm 

to CO O TT CO 
Tf lOa-OO 


oo 

O CO 

oo >o 


00 00 
Q 5* 
05 05 

^ co' 


O CM O GO 
CO 05 00 CO CO 
rr CO l - co ^ 

CO cT r-Tr-T 
CM CM 
CM 


00 CM 
CM 

CM O 


S! 


o o o o o 

O O O T*« co 

HCM ON GO 


o o 
^ co 
CO co 


CMNNOH 
co co O 05 to 
CM 05 05 CO CO 

rH i-H t—< t'" ^ 


00 n- 
CO to 
CM Tfi 


CO 

CM 

U- CO 


O N- CO to CM 
CO CO O 'ON 
05 O CM 05 CO 

Tf< CM~ CO tO *0 


CM 


O Tf< 

oo 


s c 


00 o oo ^ oo 

CM GO GO Tf 
CM 05 CM O to 


^ CO 

o t - 

00 co 


£ 


a 


•A: 

03 

:e 

I'd 

© § 

O M 

22+J i2 

S«J 

rg .CO 

§3 o 
cx* 


K W 


• c3 

• O 
; -Q 
; c3 

. o 

C/5 


gins 

.d O C 3 ^ 

pj ft w 

^ r-. CU> 
W4J r 

• i—( *H <-3 «i-H • 

g:aSSl.s 


_ p,-r'-2J P<r«j •• o3 22 

hr? ©23 O ©’trt ©’2't^Zs 3 

g,o.2.23^.SSg g-fe^O 

2.5m -.2 ^2.2 g g £ 


o 

Q, CO 

•2 

-S (P 


w 

Eh 

a 

o 

£ 

£ 

w 

> 

< 

w 

E 

Q 

<5 

O 

CQ 

l-H 

(-■( 

a 

Eh 

<1 

u 

Ph 

w 

CQ 

o 


Eh 

CQ 

<1 

(—1 

> 

o 

<1 

a 

o 

P3 


c 

a 

CO 


o 

Eh 


00 

CO 

03 


co 00 
tM co 

CO 00 


a 


to to 

2£ 00 
cm co 


Tj< t'- cO 
O 03 00 
CM CM 


O to to 

05 rH CM 

CM 


O 

CM~ 


N- 00 
»H CO 
CM 


CO CM rj« 
CH CO 

Tf o 


■*T rH 

COO 

to 


to rfH 
CM tO 
tji t'- 


to CM 
to CO oo 

CO N h 


CM CM 
to CO 
CM O 


00 O CM 
Tf 1 00 to 
to CM rH 


i to 05 co 

> CO TP Tf C3 

) 00 HQ5N 

OcT to to CM 


£S 

£§8 

05 CM 

•^fON 

CO 

co O co 


rH 

• O 

• • o 

• CO 



CO O CO o 

CO O CO o 

O COrr o 


00 

rji CM 

CM CO CO 

CM 

05 

HNCO 

O 

00 CO 

00 to 

o' 

cm" ^ 



, d> 

03 
• E 
Itj 
. a 

® C3 
© « 

-ga 

5=^ 


s 

^ W Ph 
rl 

§a-2.s 
o & s a 
® 0,0 
cs m 

tjaSHnh 

6 a »a aa 


^ CO 

g.a a ® 

Qp {2, (/ a 

a^> 

S,|-3'S. 

_ 0 ,§GQ O, 
cn © ©'35 
•2.2^| 
-a « 






















































































110 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


0 

.a 

0 

O 

O 

I 

M 

H 

P5 

O 

£ 

W 

> 

H 

p4 

A 

£ 

fc 

O 

to 

HH 

a 

o 

Eh 

<1 

H 

Pi 

w 

to 

O 

H-5 

tH 

to 

HH 

> 

0 

a 

o 

PS 

Pm 


Miscel¬ 

lane¬ 

ous. 

co cm ^ o 

CO *0 Ci 00 

CO ^ u- 

21,034 

Fuel- 

oil, 

naph¬ 

tha. 






Pota¬ 

toes, 

apples. 


15 


1,809 

Lead, 

spelter, 

bullion, 

acid. 






Junk, 

scrap 

iron. 





2,985 

Hay, 

broom 

corn. 

rH CM 

1-4 CM 



2,090 

Seeds, 

castor 

beans. 

10*0 *o 

‘OH CO 

CM rH 


1,215 

Hides, 

hair. 

425 

CO 

rH 

00 


8,075 

Ferti¬ 

lizer, 

bones, 

horns, 

hoofs. 

2,125 




3,502 

Lard, 

tallow, 

grease, 

oil. 

17 

3,910 

16,252 

24,956 

Pack¬ 

ing¬ 

house 

prod¬ 

ucts, 

boxed 

and 

loose. 

9,044 

85 

5,066 

2,176 

44,234 

Fresh 

meat, 

beef, 

pork, 

mutton. 

996 




119,344 

Meal, 

bran, 

chops. 

4,465 

1,463 



30,077 

Flour. 

10,440 

700 

2,020 

680 

53,780 

Oats, 

rye, 

barley. 

2,950 

30 

150 

3,280 

Corn. 

3,434 

33 

O 

O 

*o 

i—4 

9,099 

Wheat. 

3,672 

1,080 

8,280 

54,720 


T3 

I 

CO 

a> 

A 


JS 

h 
o 

O *H 

„ 

to w 5 

Jill'S 

§® * 
toS A 


o 

Eh 


to 

A 

Pm 

A 

A 

ffl 

a 

»—i 

o 

£ 

A 

o 

o 

A 

◄ 

<T 

K 

◄ 

a 

o 

a 

Eh 

a 

o 

CO 

<r 

a 

3 

a 

o 

< 

i—i 

> 

A 

a 

a 

o 

a 

Pm 


COON OcONtOMOO NcO 

<M O (M <M >D >D 05 *D <N O <M 

M«H fINW'tiWO t- 

id A o' id <m A cL A <m 

27,586 

179,322 

• • « ■ ••••• •• 

• •• •• 

• • • •• 

• • • • • • t • • •• 

it* •••••• • • 

• « • i • • t • • •( 

III • ••••• •• 

• It •••••• •• 


136,242 

CO CO I s - i i • N • iO • 

CO ^ • i • CO • rH • 

•«• 1/5 • • 

1,518 

9,429 

00 O co CM CM -*F 00 co tF • • 

N H QO rpOOOONcO • • 

t> CO 00 ^Nr-1 ^ CO CO • • 

r4 rH CS W t>- CM • • 

H H rH lO • • 

99,840 

125,944 

OOO U30U500U5 • • 

r ---p co omnhooh • • 

tH 00 CO TP -P 00 CS i-< • • 

,-P (N • • 

7,455 

25,380 

co 001 >- © • • • CM • •• 

CO H L" d • • • d • • • 

d iii • ii 

803 

70,521 

* 0*0 • * 0*0 • iO o *o • • 

^F tF 1 HH • CO CO rH • • 

• 1 H • • 

O 

O 

CO 

5,940 

CO co d CO 00 CO rF CO I s "* 

cocoo tocooot^t^ OiO 

COHH rH TjiQdCC CM 

cT r-T CO 1 H 

rH 

21,012 

55,760 

1,088 

153 

170 

255 

4,335 

rH 

o 

o 

CO 

22,846 

>0 d O rf rH • OC5 00 COCO 

U- CM CO lO '05C0N rH rH 

■*F CM CO • 05 *o co*o 

rH . 00 CM' 

rH • 

25,636 

81,616 

co rH co eo-^TfiOdo 05 cm 

CM CO CO *o N CO ‘O IQ lO co»o 

io 05 co th co ooiooo co 

o co ^ tt rC tC(N 

rH H rH 

63,104 

061 ‘m 

co CO CO H CO CO d CD CM . 

rH dHOOHOCO »o • 

CO pH- rH Tf CONCOQH GO • 

CO r-T 05 Cm" 00 CM lO co *o • 

CM CO 

rH • 

223,668 

646,068 

wooo so'iiows r- co 

»D CO (M tt 00 00 00 ID tH co 

O CO 03 <NCOCD00O5<N TP 

Aooco' cT <n'co'i-7 

1-H CO CO 

106,215 

*o 

CM 

CO 

CO 

(N 

OOO oooooo oo 

CD O 00 TP 00 <M 00 O <M (MO 

<M C5 <M i-l tp tP CO 05 »D 1^00 

t-C(M(M AAccoTim' cocL 

49,860 

461,720 

16,850 
34,000 
51,027 

120 

2,116 

6,079 

745 

25,926 

4,310 

10,013 

151,186 

181,585 

CO N N N O N CD CO N .© 

cocoo o o o o CO o • o 

h COO Th- tF CO CO • co 

co o' oo' H H • i-T 

^F rH rH H • 

96,867 

151,890 

00 O OO TP O © O TP CD CD 00 

(M tP tP 03 CD O TP -p p*» id tp 

O T 05 COOOOtp>o<M ID CD 

o'oT-p cocoi-h'th'io'co' cJim" 

(OHN H 05 tH 

CO 

532,764 

2,132,928 

o and Milwaukee. 

nis. 

:ippi River (proper). 

apolis, St. Paul, and Lake 
srior points. 

isin. 

> States. 

^rd. 

sast and Mississippi Valley. 
t: 

lantic ports . 

ilf ports . 

Potal . 

Irand total . 


jH!jfi.si 

Ssasi 


« ® a as 


o 


Total, 1,413,815 net tons; grand total, 4,725,638 net tons. 
















































































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. Ill 


Exhibit 26. — Actual rail movement, carload freight traffic (net tons) easthound from 
Missouri River cities and via them from Nebraska and Kansas year 1914— Continued. 

KANSAS CITY TONNAGE. 


Commodity. 

Per cent. 

Wheat. 

52.76 
1.61 
1.00 
12.26 
3.31 
10. 40 
3.34 

1.06 
.5 

Corn. 

Oats, ryo, barley. 

Flour... 

Meal, bran, chops. 

Fresh meat, etc*.. 

Packing-house products. 

Lard, tallow, etc. 

Fertilizer, etc. 

Hides, hair. 

.91 



Commodity. 

Per cent. 

Seeds,etc. 

0.01 
2.31 
.5 
.9 
.02 
4.65 
4.46 

100.00 

Hay, broom corn. 

Junk, scrap iron. 

Lead, spelter, etc. 

Potatoes, apples. 

Fuel oil, naphtha. 

Miscellaneous. 

Total. 



62.03 per cent of grand total. 

Exhibit 26 —(Extended arbitrarily).—Comparative classified tonnage and revenue rail 
freight (excluding live stock, dressed or fresh meats, and packinghouse products) 1906 
and 1914. 

YEAR 1906. 


From, to, and through.! 

Tons. 

Revenue. 

East and 
export. 

West. 

East. 

West. 

From and to lower Missouri River cities. 

From and to Kansas and southern Nebraska.... 

Total. 

1,681,873 
373,568 

1,182,288 
522,090 

$3,016,901.50 

$1,164,461.01 

$5,344,431.70 
$2,041,844.84 

2,055,441 
54.67 
3, 759, 819 

1, 704,378 
45.33 

$4,181,362.51 
36.15 
$11,567,639.05 

$7,3S6,276.54 
63.85 

Per cent of total. 

Grand total.. 





YEAR 1914. 


Kansas City... 

2 2,530, 715 
216, 622 

3 2,098,359 
179,613 

} 4 $5,588, 809.13 

4 $9,872,358.58 

St. Joseph,'Atchison, and Leavenworth. 

Total . 

2,747,337 
54.67 
691,896 
5,025,309 

2,277,972 
45.33 
573,594 

4 $5,588,809.13 
36.15 
$1,407,446.62 
$15,461,167.71 

4 $9,872,358.58 
63.85 
$2,486,082.04 

Per cent of total. 

Gain over 1906. 

Grand total.. 





1 Originating in and destined to lower Missouri River cities, southern Nebraska, and State of Kansas. 

2 2.652,318 tons east and west in 1906. Per cent, 95.42. Appendix C, H. Doc. No. 1120,60th Cong, 2d sess. 

3 Projected upon 1906 relationship east and west tonnage. 

< Projected upon 1914-1906 tonnage ratios. 

TWENTY PER CENT OF 1914 KANSAS CITY TONNAGE. 

(Estimated to go via completed river.) 


. 

Tons. 

Revenue. 

Boat line 
revenue 
(80 per 
cent). 

F.a^thmind ._.... 

506,143 
587,672 

$102,834 
187,651 

$92,267 
145,320 

We^tbfumd . . - -____......................... 

Total . 

1,087,815 
1,903,676 

284,485 

497,848 

237,587 
398,278 

Estimated year 1922, based on 1914 gain over 1906 of 75 per cent. 










































































112 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


Exhibit 27. —Movement of walnut lumber and logs for export from southwestern Missouri 

River. 


Lines. 

Via Gulf ports. 

Via South Atlantic 
ports. 

Total. 

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe . 

Tons. 

464 

Per cent. 
14.5 

Tons. 

Per cent. 

Tons. 

464 

Per cent. 
8.9 

Chicago & Alton. 

914 

28.6 

294 

14.6 

1,208 

23.2 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy. 

628 

19.7 

i 771 

38.4 

1,399 

744 

26.9 

Chicago Great Western. 

2 744 

37.1 

14.3 

Chicago, Milwaukee A- St Paul 





Chicago, Rock Island A Pacific. 







Kansas City Southern 

960 

30.1 



760 

18.5 

Missouri, Kansas & Texas . 

170 

5.3 



170 

3.3 

Missouri Pacific. 

92 

4.6 

92 

1.8 

Quincy, Omaha A Kansas City. 




St. Louis & San Francisco.. 







Wabash. 

57 

1.8 

107 

5.3 

164 

3.1 


Total. 

3,193 

100.0 

2,00S 

100.0 

5,201 

100.0 




1 26 tons via New York. 2 Via Montreal. 

TOTAL, VIA GULF AND SOUTH ATLANTIC PORTS, COMPARATIVE, 1905 AND 1906. 


(This exhibit is reproduction of exhibit in Burnham-Hanna-Munger case before U. S. Supreme Court 
Interstate Commerce Commission v. C., R. I. & P. Ry., 218 U. S., 88 .) 


Lines. 

1905 

1906 

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe . 

Tons. 

242 

204 

3,083 

Per cent. 
4.6 
4.1 
61.3 

Tons. 

464 

1,208 

1,399 

744 

Per cent. 
8.9 

23.2 
26.9 

14.3 

Chicago & Alton . 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy. 

Chicago Great Western. T_ , v . 

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul . 



Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific . 

466 

177 

9.3 

3.5 



Kansas City Southern . 

960 

170 

92 

18.5 

3.3 

1.8 

Missouri, Kansas & Texas . 

Missouri Pacific . 

284 

5.6 

Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City . 

St. Louis & San Francisco . 

328 

248 

6.5 

4.9 



Wabash . 

164 

3.1 

Total . 

5,032 

100.0 

5,201 

100.0 




























































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 113 


o 

Oi 


CSi 

S 

• (S' 

-8 

co 

s 

•<y^ 

O 


$ 

o 

co 

I 

£ 

K 

"*•© 

co 

cu 

£ 

■< 

£ 

o 

Cc 

-£ 

©> 

£ 

o 

t- 

-< 

"© 

Si 

© 


o 

% 

k. 

-V^ 

£ 

o 

£ 

£ 

s> 


'©I 

£ 

© 

<© 

©i 

© 

£ 

£ 

© 

*© 

£ 

£ 

© 

»© 

•*w 

CO 

C2 


00 

©1 


X 

W 


m 

t> 


t>> 

P3 

ft 

■3 

i-4 

« 

d 


i 

a 

o 

U 


o 

O 


3 

o 

O 

© 

£ 

© 

t-i 

ft 

3 

m 


co 

73 

© 

+j 

C 

d 


tc 

C 

3 


£ 

03 

X 

E 

£ 

.5 

I© 

2 

x 


3 

O 

© 
3 
73 

C~ O 

w <-> 


rr © 
*— 


xi 

ft 


^■g ft 
-2 §S?£ 

- or. —« 

= ££g 

«sr= £ 


r^O: W fcjO 

o> « csj rr 

goE-® 

° 2 °S'd 


a 

ft 

<1 


3 c3 

£■3 


Ore, 

bullion, 

and pig 

lead. 


487 

97 

284 

462 

1,330 

Oil, 

petro¬ 

leum. 

10.749 

3,527 

8,381 

17,597 

6,675 

7,648 

25 

894 

30 

349 

3,029 

58,904 

Oil, 

cotton¬ 

seed. 

749 

60 

517 

15 

29 

1,423 

517 

24 

92 

3,426 

& 

tt 

874 

1,142 

4,213 

727 

3,231 

1,262 

559 

195 

8,490 

13 

4,518 

523 

TT 

icT 

CM 

Cement, 

plaster, 

etc. 

CM O CM 

CM Oi 

tO CM 

. 

15 

20 

• to 

• CO 

• o> 

• H 

. CO 

• t-H 

1,985 

Grain 

products. 

32,084 
49,835 

103,200 

17,238 

26,962 

77.475 
12.281 

1,021 

63.920 

15 

13,391 

47,909 

445,331 

Grain. 

79,235 

86,544 

91,299 

114,202 

170.585 

65 495 
66.619 

42,176 

139.853 

430 

53,589 

46,046 

956,073 

Broom 

corn. 

CMH O 

rr co *0 

109 

79 

• o> 

00 N 

00 

CO 

745 


tO TT 
CO CM 
CO CM 


Ci lO CO O O CM O CO *0 to oc o 

7)1^ C O 00 Hh O'. rH CM COCO 

CM oo co to to to ICO CO vO 


CO co oo 

o co> *0 ^ 

N H 


CO CM 

t-VH 

CM 


Tf CO CO 1-H 

rr oc to *-< 

TT O O 


»C CM CM 
CM C»0 
I- 


Oi O 
CO C 
O 


O O 
Cd rr 
CM 


a % 

2 c3 
o 


T3 . 
C co 


2* 
•a c3 

^ o 


© CTi 00 

CM © '•* 

CM CO CM 


tO O 00 CM CO 


CM CM 
t- O 
rr rr 


CM co 
CM ^ 
CO CO 


o o 

»-< CM 
CO CO 


|>. CO 
© 
CO 


CM © 
cr. CO 

r?i © 


•8 

G3 


® M ° ry kL C 

•3 C c5 -* p © 

< Go o 


E«y 


3 

C3 

£ 

|3 

&ft 

g3 . 
© +^. 

2 00 

o 


© . 

o® 

— 

P4'© 

e8 

cat: 

r-* 

2§ 

o 


' 0.3 


H 2f<- 
f 3 3 


° m ® 

05 © GO 

.2i^.SS 

' a o’ 


c 

03 


*« • 3 
■ C3 

C8 • £ 

03 , • C 
3-03 

3 H co 
°C^ 

-S-ss 

>.V> 3 

©Co 

Ifii 


o a 

pi 03 


O 

H 


CO 


H. Doc. 4G3, 64-1- 

\ 


































































114 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


& 

a 

pH 

5=1 

O 

O 


o 

Ol 

V. 

*< 


«3> 

£ 

•<s> 

i 

to 

s 

*e*> 

o 

a 

fc 

?> 

* P-> 

i. 

s 

o 


Is 

N-i 

§ 

§ 

•*< 

no 

5 

© 

oo 

•< 

©i 

3 

o 

*s; 

rs 

•3 

•e 


© 

4s 

3 

© 

<© 

3 

3 

■© 

"© 

-K 

"33 

3 

-© 

<31 

><3 

3 

3 

O 

*33 

3 

3 

© 

r© 

NO 

CO 

t§ 


oo 

CM 

Eh 

HH 

tt 

t-X 

w 

M 

« 


o 

o 

+■> 

w 

® 

> 

3 


© 

Ph 


© 

a 

a 

© 

> 

© 

P5 


© a 

Ph © 


a 

o 

Eh 


3 

M) 


3 


o 

Eh 


Ph 


a 

a 

© 

t> 

© 

Ph 


o 


© 5 

O O 

c /5 ® 

§ § 


© 

a. 

CO 


p. 

C3 

O 

02 


ft • 
ce d 
t-i o 

© H 
CQ ,a 


c3 

CG 


bCTJ3 
03 P d 
Ph =«£ 


C3 m 
*£ © 
P ° 

Pi+h 


9 

.3 

*4 


t'- co oo 
oejo gj 


O 

00 


CM 

CO 


CM TtH 
rr 00 

U- 00 

c/? - 


00 


ioo co 

CD rr !>• 

kO CD 


CP o 

lO rr 
00 


OP 


NT CP 
CM CM 
<M 


CM CO 


CO Nf 

o 


op 

d 


co co 
cm* co 


Cl 

CO 


CM 00 
LO CM 
■»f iO 

NT t ^ 
•*r CD 
CM CM 


S3 


CM O 
O rr 
C t- 


00 rr 

r^d 


CM 

© 


r^» io 
CM rr 


rT pH 

iri 


pH lO 
rT CM 
CM pH 


o 

CP 

rr 

CM 

pH 

CO 


00 

00 

t- 

CO 

r— 

o 

rr 

CO 

pH 

CD 

00 

CD 


CO 


CO 

pH 

rr 

rr 

CP 

pH 

CO 

CM 



pH 

CD 


pH CP PfH 

CM o *r 

CD iO O 


00 rr 

io h- 
U- rT 


00 
NfH t'- 

rr U- 


CP CD 
CO CO 

O pH 


cm cm r- 

O CO *0 

pH CD CD 


CD CO 
00 CP 

oo co 


CD CP 
kO CM 

pH T'- 


pH N 

CO O 
CO CD 


00 T?H 

CD O 
rr 


•8 : 
os : 

3 • 
© ■ 
p. : 
o . 

a* 

O C3 

C/5 -*H 

•§ ” 
£ co 


to • 

.2 \t 

or; >> u 

- 3B° 

"^ca’3 o 

•8 O’teg 

O O"^, 03 © 
bJC tX)^ O c/5 
^ c3 n__ 05 

22 ^ 

oo o 


A4 : >. 

Ocg.^ 

tf|o 

W 


•8 


*8 


£|j iA*8 

© B.-g 


t-O 
00 Ol 
(N T>< 


.a _, n o3 ® 


O 


J^CO m ^ 
in’d 

u 2'C t,: ^ o '© x3 

CO ® ro E u ^2 

.55EH.S 3W -fin 9 

S Scy m ^ 


o 


a 

c3 

o 


d 

•d 


d 

o 

tS) 

.s 

M 

o 

c3 

dn 


c3 

a 


Q 


Ph 


d 

d 

o> 

> 

0) 

Ph 


Ph 


d 

o 

H 


Ph 


Ph 


a> 

Ph 


d 

o 

H 


Ph 


d 

d 

p 

> 

<D 

Ph 


d 

o 

e* 


s 

d 

3 


CP CM 

d d rr co pH 

pH CM pH pH 


lO 1^- CP t - 00 
kO CD CM pH co 
rT ‘O OC CO CM 

OcTcM^CM^rr'ko' 

CO CP CM I - pH 

'r oo cp oo 


kO CD CM CP 
CO d pH pH pH 


ic rr oc op 

00 CO l ^ CO 
rH CD CO kO O 

oo cD'rr'oTco' 
OC’ C pH CO rr 
pH co CD CO CO 


CD 00 CD pH pH 

CO t>» rT 00 rr 


CO CO rt IQ 
rr rr C CP Q 
ph ^r kO CM O 

OP kC pH rT »D 
OC O CO PT kO 
^5? pH CO CM 


CM r^» to kO 00 
CP CP CP Ol CD 
C rr kC O 00 


rr rr CM CO pH 
pH CO 00 rr 


kO pH O CM CP 
CM pH CO rr pH 
CD l- rH OP 

cT aTi^TccTpr' 
cr OC O CP o 
CM OC CO CO 


rr rr CM CO pH 
pH CO OO rr 


i ^ CM CO rr O 
cm -r *o h 
CM CO p^ CM rT 


© 

Pm 




O’ 


CO 


°8 c«8 

a -2 © 
„ -S »M 
a Si-ii a 

® O = C3 

Oji- si 

o o o' o o' 
.05 to to to be 
a C3 C3 C3 <s 
p.© .©.©.© 
2 2 2 2 
<ooou 



































































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 115 


t^HlOHOOM 
OHH© * *C O 

rH 

100 

443,427.69 
126,264.04 
79,365. 72 
698,906.89 
8,462.56 
428,035. 74 
757,842. 29 

7,385,714.60 

WONCOH^iO 

N W H H * *C 05 
rH 

100 

co Tt< co co co co 
t - ic-r ci ci 
H H t- »c CO (N t - 

oo co oo co" co* i >f to 

OX 04 ION 

Cl CO HN 

2,898,085 

rH 05 r- CO iH rH CO 

CO O *H C4 

rH rH rH 

100 

42,555.39 
12,032. 56 
10,183. 80 
143,588.51 
956.65 
1.50,456.32 
165,438. 75 

1,350,610.13 

C4 05 00 CO rH rH C4 

CO © HCM 

rH rH rH 

8 

rH 

O M IN X 05 iC h 
o >o »o C ‘O C h 
to 04 l^. OC 04 CO l- 

r-Tco'oToo' oV' 

H CO rr ^ 

to 

C4 

o 

»C 

CO 

CO 

00 • • N • rf l>. 

C4 • • C4 • CO CD 

100 

rH .oo • oo co 

Od *00 1 rH o 

CO r-I • I- ■ »C "T 

HTf • rH • O 

t'- cO • cO ■ l>- tO 

o' • oT • CM ‘O 

cO • *0 • ^ 

• • rH 

J 2,168,354.12 

o0 • • N • ’f N 

ci • • ci • co co 
* • * 

• • • 

8 

rH 

05 co 'CO • o> r- 

© l>• • rH • -f CO 

rH * rH • CO C^ 

co • CO • 05 05 

rH • rH • rH CO 

or 

o 

sf 

‘O 

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific. 

Kansas City Southern. 

Missouri, Kansas & Texas. 

Missouri Pacific. 

Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City. 

St. Louis & San Francisco_. 

Wabash. 

Total. 


w 

HH 

i-4 

W 

o 

I—t 
« 
H 
<1 
W 
« 

W 

w 

O 

a 

Ei 

a 

O 

CQ 

a 

o 

£ 

o 


w 

c/3 

< 

a 

« 

w 

Q 

£ 

< 

m 

< 

m 

£ 

< 

UJ 

£ 

>—i 

C/3 

H 

HH 

O 

Ph 

£ 

o 

(—I 

E-* 

O 

fc 

a 


o 

a 


Ore, 

bullion, 

and pig 

lead. 

• • C4 -On 1 

• *C4 • oo05 

• • • rH Tji 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • . 

• • • 

. t • 

• * . 

00 to 

rH <M 
rH 

o 

rH 

o • 

CO • 

T*« . 

cf j 

13,299 

d 

O 

• • CD iQ C tO 

• • rH co CO t'H 

• • Cl Ol CO 

ZI0‘8S 

LVi 

co • 

<M • 
00 • 

cf • 

to • 

112,904 

Hay. 

OlCO‘QtO^(NHHCO 

iQXOCbXCl'TTrrji 

Ol CO CO n C5lO 

rH 

co r ^ 
co o 

tO Cl 

5,312 

Cement 

and 

plaster. 

O CO © rH co O 

CO © CO co CO 
NHMtNCDCO 

of 00 s 

O CO 

05 CO 
rH CO 

rH 

rH 

5,765 

4,595 

34,276 

Broom 

corn. 

co ^ oo co 04 

CO 04 to HCI 

00 rH Tf 

• co 

• 05 

• rH 

^ to 

CO C4 

rH 

00 

3 

00 

rH 

Butter, 
eggs, and 
dressed 
poultry. 

’tCON^OOH^C'l 
to 05 X co Cl N H CO Cl 
O'OI’TTHCO coco 

of Tjf r-T co" 

1,555 

1,540 

23,155 

Bones, 

hoofs, 

horns, 

fertilizer, 

tankage. 

• kO • iO 05 

00 • rH • rH CO 

• • rH 

• fC4 

• 00 
• 05 

CO O 
CO to 

1,496 

Apples. 

r*< • CO to rr 00 

05 • 00 C© Ol *0 

rH • Tf rH rH 

• rH 

26 

84 

o 

CO CO 

rH 

rH 

00 

CO 

cf 

Fourth 

class. 

CO 05 CO CO CO tH 

T XCO N O’T 
^ rH rH co 

rH 

r- co 
t- co 

04 Cl 

CO oo 

rH rH 

CO rH 

3,165 

Third 

class. 

XO»CHTfO 

rH lO co rH 00 00 

04 rH 

o o 

»0 rH 

tO tO 
*0 04 

00 

00 

Second 

class. 

Cl CO N 05 CO 

05 rH t— H00 

CO rH 

00 C4 

00 C4 

Cl 

CO H 

CO rH 

Cl 

1,248 

First 

class. 

*0 *0 T Cl CO O 

O X Cl H lO 

to rH 04 

00 C4 

rr rH 

rH CO 

<X> to 

CO to 
Cl 

C4 

co 

00 

rH 




g 

3 




C/3 


•8 




■JS^C 

.. Jilllt 

■* § § s 

P.+;3+> te.Kc/3 C 

h^Sjc-O A/ 

^ k, pq A S «.ri M 
c *”3 ”C5 ""q ._• 
o o o' o o' o' b 

c/3 Mj SJO M bJO b£ c3 S 
•3c3e3c3c3c3c/30 

•g.2 ® a£2 c % 

J3 ,C ,c jb jG ‘^ 73 
•<OOCKJOHa 


o 

a o 

§3 

<S " 

w g 

“8 Pin 

’Si " 3 

w x 

u kT'3 j 

^ to 


IS 

-*-> 

o 










































































Exhibit 28 .—East bound tonnage and revenue on traffic from and through southwestern Missouri River 'points during the year 1906 —Continued. 
FROM JUNCTION POINTS IN KANSAS AND NEBRASKA, ON OR SOUTH OF THE BEATRICE LINE—Continued. 


116 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


o 

o 

OT 

O 

> 

3 


Ph 


00 

OONN 


Ph 


u 

® S3 
Ph « 


g 

o 

ft 


ft 

t JO 


ft 

«3 


© 

Ph 


3 

S3 

© 

© 

PP 


Ph 


ft 00 

© 3S 

© o 

OT (J> 

Ph C 

c3 


ft 

GQ 


ft • 
03 S 
© O 


c3 

CO 


Sirs. 

c3 e 

Ph 


ot 

■t ao 

P 0 

ft ^ 


hrH H 

1— O lO 


CM © 

© r-I ' 


CO cm 
CM* tO 


00 tP 


1-H CO 

to o 
CO to 


© © 
CO to 

»o CO 


© <M 
CO f h 


r— to 

TP 

CM CO 


to CO 
f- CO* 


c co oo a> Cioc i- cm hicco 

00 C i CO O O' CM O CM CM 00 CO CO 

CO to ’-H C4 Cl f-H CO Hl^co 


CO CM CO Hto 
lOHTpH CO CO 


CM 00 

to 


g 

o 

H 


00 CO CM CM 
1—< CO' CO 00 

CO t- 05 

aT Tp' TjT -p' 


oocicoh 
C to CO H 
Tp rH O O 


Tp t'r H 

aoci 
00 o 


COOtON 
H Cj to a 
05 CM 00 to 


co co 

to 

CO 00 


. c O CO to 
# to O'- tP 
CO to 05 CM 


05 o 

QC CM 
CO 


ctf 

G 

c3 

03 

03 


.g ’co 
3 : 
0^*3 


o ^ 

09 -H C3 

© o (3 > 

Ci.-*- 1 ‘D . 

ft<|£;i 

ffio 

o o o' o o' 

OT Sb bJD SuCift 
ft 03 03 C3 03 3 
ft O © O O CO 

2 2 ft 2 ^ 

<50000 


or co 
CO l- 

o u- 


tp © © 

05 CO GO 

TP f-H 


CO to 

oco 

to Tp 


o 

<a 

’§ : 2 
ft :g 
•y 

^ a m 

— ft OT 
c/> 3 c3 
I— C ot 

ftC «p c 

O K. C3 

O co he 
c3 fl 

c3 rr O 
O c ^ 

r- Co •— > 

nMS, 


c3 

o^: 

'I s 

ftO 


CM CO 

TP I- 
H t- 


o o 
to CO 
CO CO 


50k°d 
.2au • c3 

So? 


o 

H 


a3 

o 

-h> 

P3 

eg 

Jh 

o 


to to CM TP CO 

o» * 


O »h O 00 'O CO rH CM 05 t-H Of; co 

V: C5 CC O i- ^ C ^ c^. ^ H 
OCiOH’pQCl^CCOCCHOtO 

i-ToTco"r -"oc to" cm"*—" aT ^ © 

CO t-H to r- 1 CM t *» CO CO Tp Tp 

rH tP CO 


t'- CM CM CO CO Ol 05 
CO rH tP r—< CO tP * CO* ' 


CO CO 
to* CM 


Ol^COC005tOOcOtOTpiOCC 
00 CO OC CM t—* t'- G J t- TP C5 <Jl r-4 
tCOitOOOCMcOcON O to 

co'Tp'ccTto'cMl^' »o" OI o 


Tp r-H ( 

U H CO 


) cO i-H cO tP 
’ CO 05 Tp TP 


Packing-house products. 

Revenue. 

O 05 TP o Tp »-« N Ol Ol • O CO 

C/j 05 Tp CM CO CM 05 C r-* * CO O 

to cd CM 05 O tO O CO GO • ^P* CO 
f-H O Tp r- O l- GC- '»0 U 

C5 to ct-'■ i—1 to O t-H CM Tp • CM CM 

CO r-T t-TcTcm" cm" 'Ofr-T 

^ ^ .rH 

51,109.72 

Per cent. 

rp H CO CO f-H tO TP 

NHCO CO 05 Tp -p 

rH tH 

! -H to 

• Tp CM 

• CM 

© 

© 

rH 



© —H CO ^ 05 05 oc -p to 

• O'! © 

00 




I- 

, -H 




CO 

Hj- H Ht< 

TP l'- to 

CO 

• CO CO 

00 










O 

CM 

CM 


CO 

• co 


CO 


ft 







i-H 


-*-2 

05 

• ^ C» 








© CO H 

• co o i 



• © 


© 


o 


• i-H 





© 


'f- 









05 









ft 










© OI Tp 

’ © tP 



■ © 


© 



TP T^^ CO 

• to CM 



• CM 



c3 

05 

© 05 00 

. tP © 





© 



© TP CO 

. © CO 



• co 



s 

05 

© © l-H 

. rp N 



• 00 


oo 

xi 

> 

05 

• r-H 





co 

GO 

05 

GA- 






rH 

<o 

ftH 

ft 

















S-H 









o 









T3 

ftft 

00 

• Tp 00 



• © 



05 


OOH 

• co oi 





© 

C/5 

GO 

o 

t- 

• T —1 





© 

05 

ft- 








ft- 

05 








P 

ft 










CO © 

• © t- 



• TP 


co 



^»oco 

• 03 t- 



• CM 


CO 



© CM 

. r-H rp 



• 03 


t- 


3 









o 

CM 






co 


ft 









CO v> 

m c . ^ 

a» 

C-S 05 

O cr 0) 

ft M 

C3 - • r K' 

© o .g <" c3 

ft^ ~H HH ^ 

©G5 hi 

©j <5 3 © xl 

o o o' o o 

W tc 10 to t/. 

JZl c3 c3 
o-2-2-2-2 

"-C rS £ 5 
<;qouo 


75 

c3 

X 

T? 

Cj © w, 
tr. r r> 

HH — 03 
. . O V) 

Xm p 

© 03 

O I..1J 

S'S s 

e3 m O 
o p OT 

ft g rA 

6W 




OT O 

§ g 

M i 

L 5 -h 

^5(xh 

o 2 a 

O 2^ 

•-H O* 

•F-1 .2 

9 lC'3 

.SSp . 03 

O'cc!^ 


c3 

-M 

o 


This exhibit is reproduction of exhibit in Buruham-Hanna-Munger case before United States Supreme Court, Interstate Commerce Commission v. C., R. I. & P. Ry 218 
U. S., 88. 




































































































Exhibit 29.— Westbound tonnage and revenue on traffic to and through southwestern Missouri River points during the year 1906. 

[This exhibit is reproduction of exhibit in Burnham-ITanna-Munger case before U. S. Supreme Court, Interstate Commerce Commission v. C. R. I. & P. Ry., 218 U. S., 88.] 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 117 


ft 2 O 


ft 

ft 

*< 


"o Pi 
^3 ±5 fteJ 
o »- ft 

-sHa 


, . r/j 

V ^ 4) 

J- ‘S 

t/- *-< <35 

^i=ft 


W 

co 

co 

c5 

s 


03 

o 


o 


c3 

6 


ft 

co 

co 

in 

O 


C3 

O 


ft CO 

SJ 

ft © 


O' 

ft 


.a co 
ft ft 


'S . 

S co 
O £ 
o <S 

a; V, 
GQ u 


■ o C5 

rr CO !>• C »0 O CC rr X “ ' 

l- iCHOOlN 


ccc wcC'Xi--rcci'i-‘Coo 

CO CO C5 CM Cm 00 1-1 oc cm 

CM r-H H 


C5C05^0UCO?C(N05(NH 

*oxcoo50»ocoo5Cmcoi^i>- 

CCXWHI- 04 1- rH T-i l- 
05 CO I - Tp i^TiH r-T co' 


00 OC lO t-- 05 CO 
l - CO ‘ O CM i - O 1 
CO ‘C CO l- as 


O OC 
CM 00 

o 


Cl Cl Cl © or. CM oc © CO 
MOCOCOCOl-HCCCM 

«o a, o co ^ o> co 


05 lO U- rH CO CO 
C l l- 00 05 CM i.O 
CO CO CO ©- tO uO 


»C O CO t - 05 co 
c - - co to x »- 

CO o CM CO 00 


1 - co 
co x 

CO 


lO'tNUCOOCOOlNCOO 
O C5 'J' H lO CM 1-1 X X' 
CM CO CM CM TP CO CO 


;; : 


CM rH CM rH CO lO 


C^CONINOOOHIC^^OIO 
COI-hhcOOOCOM^tO 
coioux o^r u. oihoo 

cooTf-Tc^oT 


H 00 O (N i - ^T 1 H C> N ' 

i- crT »rf ooV-ToT 


:3f5 


HOHCHO’tCOCC / 05 'O 
Ci CO O "P Cn CO 05 CO C O TT CM 
CCCOOCCO'ti-TCCMHN 

tp'o'co'tp'ocTo^T of cmVT 


COOHHOr-CO^’tO’fOJ 

»C i-i-OiOOvCOl^HirjCCH 

CM l- 00 r- <0 C.M CM O 05 l- 
^'cO©"Vco"'co' iO CO* 


COOClOClCOCOCOXcOiOrP 
r-« CO X rH Cl C- *0 H Cl CO r-H lO 

lOOHHCOONCCv © o 

t>To'rjT c »-TxT i - co cf 


3 


© 

ft 


s 

C3 

C/J 


o3 

-is S 


II 


ft 
o 

s 

§ iau M 
*4 B 

_i © S3 s- 

s *• © i © 

o tn o 5 x 

+-> <£> ^ o.. 73 

r-r C/D H 

® o.S’' o 

ft--- ft +J > ft CQ 
ft <1 S © ft O ft 

O C O O O O c/5 

c/i bn Uj tili in in <53 

c3 o3 ci ci ei v- 

ft o.o.©.©ft c 

■2 ft ft ft ft ft ft 

ftOOOOOft 


: ft 

, ft 

:o 

• in C 
■:« « 
sc ; </. .ij 

go 

A : S s 

5 :^2 

c3 o c3 9 
a ' c~ si 03 

■M 8 

‘CkT’E; ft 

§§ CftJ 

C/. c/j .5 — ft 

S2.23 5 • 03 


S3 

o 

H 


1 

j Grapes. 

<M ifj 05 C«5 »-4 -h 

CC r1 


cO • •cO 

l- • • CO 

756 

Glucose, 

molasses, 

and 

sirup. 

‘C CM CO »C CM CM t-H J- CO • rH CM 
C X to 1 C *1' h 1 C lO CO • lO oo 
CU^iOCOOHHifMO • CO 

hCMh CO i—i i t-h 

14,226 

Furni¬ 

ture. 

00 CO 00 CM O O H O • 1.0 co 

Cl 1..5 CO X »0 C CM h co ■ 05 -p 

H c 1 —1 CM CO Tp CM • CO 

^rH'TiHcTlO CM' • 

00 

00 

CM 

co' 

CM 

Flax¬ 

seed. 

• • 05 05 o CO 

• • UrH 1-, CO 

• • 00 CO 

• • H 



2,401 

Coke. 

CM H H CO 05 

OOXO^'OO 

00 iO ‘C CM O CO 

icT co' i-T tj 7 r-T 


CO • c co 
CO • 05 CO 
CO • {. * CO 

r-T • H CM 

22,459 

Coffee. 

OCc0HXH00'0 05 • CM CO 

00 IQ lO iO CO OG CO OC CO *05 
COX XCMrrH^ *00 

coT ! 

8,643 

Coal. 

Soft. 

CO CO CO 05 00 

CM ‘Q CO CO t - 05 

CO X Cl 1- H 05 

co' Tp' r-T 

05 TP . o CO 

O lO • TJ" o 

CO 00 • CM CO 

»h i 00 

22,062 

T3 

(h 

c3 

M 

OrfHOHCO 

CM CO ro 05 CO ‘O 

CO fH Cl 05 00 

t-T cm"' co'cm'cm'co' 


»o • O 00 

CO • CO 05 

rH 1 lO 

• rH 

888‘IT 

s 

© 

S 

© 

o 

CM CO 05 ^ CM TP 

O CO CM CO 05 CM 
httChcOO 

r-1 'TJ* i-H 

H 

CO co • 0 cco 
*o O • O O 
rH x • iQ CO 

• r-H 

19,947 

Canned 

goods. 

^OitCOOlNOXX • 00 00 

05 'O X H i - iO 1-* 05 CO ' »OiO 

CO rH 05 CM t-H to < 1- *1-0 

rH CM CO *H rp CO H • »—< 

20,306 

Box 

lumber, 

hoops, 

staves. 

1-C1050HX 'COO *050 
CC^iCOCiX • ftT -T* • 05 CM 

u;ccutOCM *hh • O "p 

lC rH CM • CO ' <H 

15,418 

Brick and 
fire clay. 

XO^HNX • 

CO Cl I- o CM 05 . 

CO 00 CM rH • 

rH co • 

CH i CM 

05 CO • 

vp • co 

o • 

17,651 


cq 


II 

CO tJj 
bf. b/j 
c3 Cv 


.3 


0X0^00 

h-tOOJHH 

H CO H c T C 


00 1-4 ^ CO CO 
UiOOOClCl' 
HOrrCCWiO 


Uh 

C3 

+-> 

s 

co 

°<3 

c3 


• ^ 

! o 
. a 
:*3 

iO* 

:^S 




05 o l O d CM 

M ft 1 C U Xf 

CM 1— 1- »C 


I- CM 

[:3 


S +- a, 
O ft o 
+- o JT 

ft S s£t§ 

0“ h 03 p 

Eh< S Oft 

c o o o o 

£; UJ tij bij t. 


’O' 


<!uoou 


03 

ft 

•a _ 

ft £h 

C O s, 

is|a 

ftctl fl 

o ► a 

O 1^.1> 

ft ft" 

.O.ft 

.|3S 

d it C 

G “ 

f- C3 •—I 

oW2 


:q 

: a 8 

; co 

• S’S 
:ft ca 

|ft 3 

ft|^ 

w CO 

P 1 k ^ q 

!|3l 

ft ’3 • 03 


o 















































































































Exhibit 29.— Westbound tonnage and revenue on traffic to and through southwestern Missouri River points during the year 1906 —Continued. 


118 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


^ Tf\ W 

O fl C 

«■§ 


C2 

m 


o ft-g 

M 3 8 

'5 STS 
PS ® 


'g* i 

o (-T32 

£ 2 g ft 
<s 3 03 ft 
pi £ S 


ft 
o fl 

c3 3 i O 

« rt ‘S-- 


® 

ft 


o3 

O 


b 

o 

a 

w) 


; ftbi> 

; s.a 

ft 


® 3 
ft S 


3 • 

O ft 


O 

O 


3 ® 

o he s 3 

3 3 3 3 
g 03 03 3 
03 

ft o ' 


3^ 

3 ® 

P m 


.3 


KO O ‘O N h 


r-H CO CM rf« 
NOXNiOOCS 
CM iO 04 05 CO GO 


CD ^ CO ^ CO 00 

*o oo os o co 

lO CM CO H CD r-H 


00 N Cl O CO 
CD 00 00 O CO CO 

co 05 cm co ^ oo 


CO 00 O CM CO CD 
Cl CO ‘O N 00 t- 
HCD^TJIDO 

co* of cf of t>f 


!e5 


CD O 

o r- 

Tt- 


OCINhOOCXCI 
N fH lO ‘O ^ CO Ol 00 CO 
CO O O CD ClrH^tCO 


Ol N O »0 O »0 
D 00 C5 CU^ 00 
CO CM 05 O 05 


N N 05 »C O CO 

»o cm oo 

05 CM 05 iO CO ^ 
of of lO cm" r}T cm' 


NCMOCDhiO 

OCCO^rHCC^ 

CSOh^iqO 


CM CO 
1 —( 00 
05 CO 


»o o 

TT CM 
CM iO 


CD 05 

r-H O 

r- 05 


t'— r-n co co co 

CD *D CD CM CO 
CO F- CM CM 


CD 00 CO ^ CM 
C ^ CO M rfi 
CO CO »h GO 


S8 


CM CD CO CM »0 »OHOOCO -CM 
tT CO CO r-H IT 


r-H CM O O 05 Tf 
CM r-H 05 CO iO CO 
HCMO 


CM CO 00 *0 1—t »0 
O r-H CM CM 05 CO 
CM CO r-H CO 


CO »0 HNO 
05 CD 00 05 ‘O CM 
05 r-H CO O Tf CD 

rtf of co* WT 


pH • 


O' 


td 


m 


°<j fi=^j 


oo ft 
O o 
>o 


f— i-~ os co 

c<o«r«o 
to ft o 


3 

<3 

m 

3 . 

®§B^ 
ft-^ ft -u 

O ’ J *-< c 3 • , Vw/ . 

3 £5 SW 

O O C O O O ij\ 
If) be be bfjblbLcJ 
{-*, c3 c3 cS c3 c3 c fi 

o .2 .2 .2 .2 c 

is s s 3 2 

<!OOOOOrt 


_ ftg 

3 +-? ® d ® 

28 . 3.35 

w -> d ^ 3 
c3 O 
feftOi 
X Cj 


: >, 

. -w 

:o 

: g o 

• 3 o 

x • S2 3 

® < Q'S 

^ ‘•«3ft 

in . 

3 o 3 d 
g<3ft ca 
So §M 
tad- 03 3<£j 
rS ft O 
_Q v 

t-H *"* kT 3 ^ 

3 3 g>o SS 

O O 2 3 

a m Rh3 
m m d . c3 

SSo'Sf? 


o 

E-i 


ft 


Pi 


3 

o 

ft 


03 . 

■-d co 

« 3 
o o 

W3 4) 


"o ft 
j®3 
& ft 


TJ 
3 . 
342 

® - d 
Li C3 

ft 3 


d 

ft 

3 

ft 


03 

bJO 

3 

CO 


■S.S <» 
-2g.-5 “ 


0? 


ft 

c3 

o 

OQ 


3 


»-HCD00r^00C0O5CMiOC0CMrH 
05 05 CO IO ^ * r-H 05 * 05 


COHC5hOO^C^NOO»OCD 

OCMt^0005rfCDCMt^COCO 

O r-i O »C 'rv rfi CD »0 CO 00 »-0 CD 

CDCO: •COC'lOCMHHOH-f 

C1N N iO h *0 CO ^ (M X I' ^ 

cTcTof rf co o cd co »o 

OChOhCNCD^OhhCMX 
TJUOO^XN O CM Tf 

SP> 


rfiOHiC^OOCCWNCO CM 
06 05 05 N O ^ * r-i 05 ’ ^ CO 


OOOrHCMrtlCrHCDNOO^fCM 

H'1'Hrf0C00POO5«H(NM 

CMiOH^NDClTt'CCDMCM 

of r—T 00 co ^05 io'lo'co r- r >T 

05 r-H CM 00 05 r-K r-H 05 

r-H CM r-H r-H i-H 


Cl CO N C r- CD CD *r co »o O CO 

Tr05cDOCM^:OH^t05HH 

D co O C l »0 05 N O X r- t>- CM 

irf co of cT-^oT r-f co cm 


CDOO^CDCONiOCOCDCOCMO 
(N 0 5C ft ft »C ^ CM CD C5 
CCOCM»OOON CM CO *C CO 

co"' iO CO ^ CO r-T r-f 


Hfiio^coc5r'- 
co r-H CD »O CO O 
CD t”— l'— 05 r-H CM 


GO 05 —I r-H 05 rfl 
l ^ r-H o CD CO 00 
CM 05 *0 ID CM to 


CDHCDOON 
Tf CO 05 CO CM 
CD O Tjr 


00 05 05^-^ IOC0 0 05 
C C5 O N H -O 05 H X 

CCOXOOC5Hr}1lO 
r-f C r—f r-f o' lif CcT 


OC CD rH 05 CO CO 

rH o TH 

CO 05 r-H oc OC Tfi 

r-H CM r-H r-H CM 


pH 

c3 


3 

C3 

GQ 

°<i 

C3 


>> ."Ht3 

•S -(gl 


o> ■•*-“ 

^ i’^'3 £ 

S^»d® 

O m 03 3 jS 
+5 ® S 3 ^ 

3 8.3^ § 

ftft ft tJ 02 

O 3? *H C3^ O . 

^nfia«g 

O O O O O O (/) 
m be bf.: bJD fcJO or c3 
d c3 ^3 c3 c$ co 

•*s 2 2 ,c 5 ft i 1 ^ 


1—1 CO 

o *0 

-H CM 


O 

« o 
(3 o 

1 -s 

Mg 


ft 

3 O 03 cl 
(7; .3 3 3 
3 S ft 3 
C3 3 

ts 8 o 

- H ftn° 3 

'3'—. 3 

«- t- kT‘3.3 
cog ^3 

CO CA ftH HH -O 

f/5 rA 




c3 
















































































































TO JUNCTION POINTS IN KANSAS AND NEBRASKA ON OR SOUTH OF THE BEATRICE LINE. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM 


KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 119 
























































































































120 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


T3 
0 ) 
g 
a 

• pH 

-u 

o 

V 


Q> 

Oa 

»-h 

S-. 

C 

» 

g> 

<w 

i< 

so 

g 

•<<■ 

S- 

-I 

co 


© 

ft. 

$5 

*<s> 

•cS> 

i 

o 

co 

.co 

§ 

g 

fe 


g 

o 

co 

r< 

©> 

g 

o 

So 

so 

g 

C 


er 

So 

so 

g 

o 

<» 

g 

g 

co 

? 

CO 

So 

*© 

g 

e 

<w 

©3 

e 

g 

g 

o 

so 

^3 

g 

g 

O 

sO 


cs 


W 

w 


3 

£ 

•rH 

£ 

o 

O 

l 

£ 


W 

o 

S-S 

Ps 

H 

< 

H 

B 

W 

W 

Ph 

O 

w 

Eh 

P 

O 

GQ 

Pi 

O 

O 

< 

W 

CQ 

<< 

Pi 

P3 

w 

£ 

Q 

£ 

< 

CQ 

5? 

< 

M 


02 

Eh 

£ 

t—( 

O 

Ps 

£ 

o 

I—< 

Eh 

O 

£ 

P 

o 


,£3 

^ o d d 
«-§ s | 


c3 

02 


'g 

C3 

2 fg 
■sg'a 


pH 


3 3 s 

O •— x3 3 

5-2 g g- 

03 S ^ & 

Pi £ 9 


T3 

« h c3j 
r^'g o £ 
c3 £ s; o 
c3~ Ss 
c3 


Pi 


g. 

s 


.3 

bO 

£ 

o 

bs 

£ 


ea 

O 


£ 

o 

.JH 

be 

5 


I be 

s. B +2 Ps ti 

Sfl S d c 
PVd'C b- a 
g 3 ft 


£ . 
O •£} 
±2 © 
o © 
O m 


2 «tj 8 
£ w £ « 

M ft to 


co »r CO 

£ ©_ 2 
o b r/O £ 

§ 2 03 S 

S Ss c3 

P O ,P 


T3 

£ _• 

C3 <j3 

c 2 

p CO 


.a 

p 


I - 00 • co o 
oc ci ‘ yj oo 

<M *-• 


^OHOJ 
MiOHCO 
t-h Tt< to 


o *o 

oo to 

00 


(MWiO’fO’t 
^ U H o 
Cl CO *-» i-« 


00 <N co 03 

CO T-h him 


Tf CD H ic’t M 
0C' rfuo H C'l CO 
CO CO 


H H o M lO 00 
O lO CUO O CO 
O 1 —i CO CO CO CO 


N 00 >C 00 05 O 
OJCOiOMOO 


OH-^iO^tM 

x) tf o >—< 

0 (MD 1 io oo 


© 

pin 

c3 

4H 

§ 

CQ 

•3 

03 


.a 

3 

O' 

•3 g. 


g 2 

is 


P> ^H 


02 




CO CO 

o 

ci co 


oi »o 

00 05 
00 


CO 
co lO 
(M O 


^ CO 
iO CA 

H O 


O Ol 
OC ^ 
(N ‘O 


O 

’■r X) 

co 


^ Tt< 
CO 05 
O CO 


00 o 
co ^ 

o CO 


U- 00 

O H 




P « s 


:h 

« Q) 

££■“3 


2 S.S’" §h o g© 

&+s>g+> r wcq d._, 

£ <; s © 5 § ^'*5 i 

« W (£ 

o o o' o o' o' co "fa "h 
.2 b« tuo be bo be cd 3 3 
i— ^ ca as ca ^ cq o o 
Pooooooc^cq 

O .^s —I ‘H -M •« 2 w w 


o 


C.£ 
33 « 
K/ H 
Ph 

«£ 

is 

I? 


T * jr c/i 

2 9 ca 

£ P jh 

a -, 03 


o 

Eh 


o 

Eh 


Pm 


Ph 


£ 

o 




c o, 

t® 3 

^ £- 


T3 
£ . 

cljr 
© -O 

5 £ 

> 


o 

-S 

Oh 

.a 

Eh 


03 

bO 

3 

CQ 


■i .2 ®- 

o3 2 ^ - - 

g> i.g 
o o d 
CQ 


© 


& 

O 

CQ 


■t » Is ffl M M .S O ffl M 1(3 CH 
ndusHNoi "idco oP 

CH .H H fH 


oo a55 > 

l - iO ' 
CC lO ( 


■ MOOOWMffl Is 

i o; co • -1 - o-row 

U-OOOCWIs'OOfS 


OO «3 CD CO C; oc ai ai co lO M ‘O 
1-* f-f . 00 *0 "H^ O'- '— 1 X) 

■ton >—i an h co c-j 


0)to®iQFsOFSH«Nai© 

oo co sf fs oo 6 ‘ ui oo ’ o cd 


Hj< "\ ai i s o fh CO C'l 0C X 

nf O I - 1' CO M O I” Cl h O I- 


N H CO) iC X iO Cl C »C ^ CO 
C3’^(M‘OC5i'-H(MOCOcODl 
CO *0 CO CO CO X^CSI^OI 


co X h o *o X 
Cl ^ »o «o 00 
l - Cl CO CO Cl 


iO^cOhQO 

h lO MM h f s. 

CO CO CO 05 »-H 


CO 00 CM 
^ 00 C4 

^ ^ CO 


ic p 
Cl » 
CO 


© 

c3 

-M> 

a 

c3 

m 


>> 


Cl oo 
CO C5 
^ Cl 


t- ^ 
O LO 

co 


n o x ’f 
1—1 CO co *o 
Cl co Tt« Cl 


Cl CO CO CO 00 
COH IOUX 

co ci uo oc ci 


^ 03 
4 J Ph 
0 Q 


O Cl 
Cl H 
CO CO 


Cl u- 
Cl 00 

co t- 


O TfH 
CO 1 - 
i- CO 


K . d JJ 

© - 
9 - 5 ? 2 £ 2 




C/1 O 

cS « 

c r. -a 

S'S 


. 5 “ © H 5 °3 • r " 

P £ W>> C M 3 2 

-t a £^ o g oj g 

„'W(g|=3 

20 O _ OT 

vwv/wwOojS-jwH p 

2 be br, be be be c3 3 3 £*£ 2 
3c3cac3c3c3(QOo225 
■Hsoooood m m.BhP 
£ '3 •£ •£ •£ -p s .2 “ 3 . 03 

<555ooWgga5? 


o^ m . c f'2o 

e 9.0 o p'p'm’h'3 £ 

a g o' 


o 

eh 


























































































































Exhibit 30. —Compare tire statement of tonnage and revenue on traffic to, from, and through southwest Missouri Fiver points and to and from junction 
points in Kansas and Nebraska on or south of the Beatrice Line 11 Consolidated” during the years 1905 and 1906. 

[This exhibit is reproduction of exhibit in Burnham-Hanna-Munger case before United States Supreme Court, Interstate Commerce Commission v. C., It. I. & P. Ry., 218 U. S., 88.] 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 121 


fl 

O 

6 

c n 

0 > 

k 


03 
Q ') 

k 


g 
c 
X 
c n 
c3 

w 


05 to 00 
CO 05 oc■ CO » 


l— Tf tO Cl d 
i ci — * co to 


0 

o 

H 


05 I- 

h 05 O 05-CM T CO Cl C C Ci O 
r-O^OCC^HTf^CMC 

oo'co co'^r' —"'op' 0 ^ r-T»o'—'»o'—T' 
or -n ci cc d i- — co i- 

HOC '*f CO 


CO CC CO 00 t- Tf CO ^ d 
Cl — t- to *-H Tji * Cl l-I ’ CO »6 


MI'OXaOrrrHiOOOCfN 

oc «o » : g/: o. — , - ci — ci o. co 
t rHa con c o 005coxco 

opo co to'co'co'co coWaT io 

© 05 GO G5 05 Tp 05 05 OC 

Cl — d — d — 


On't^iOOO lOONi 


i 05 Cl 
‘ 00 05 


GG 

k 


c 

o 




Ph 


coodo — oocico^crito© 

^ O l - Cl CC CO rf — O CO Tf 05 

CO CC O CO to — to OC co Th ^ oc 

CO to 'O Cl — ^ CO - • Cl 1 ' 

CO — C5 1^ — — to Tf Cl CO — CO 

cTcT*o'—' ^ oT oTcT cxT oT oo 

m I-’. 05 'T H Cl ^ X CO 05 
tC'CX)0GO5GCtOi-H — — l - l - 
«/> 


tOtO — tOO5G0tOCOd»-«O5t— 
CO 05 05 O O co Cl ci to ’ 1- oo 


»o *—< -r ci o — © — r— or ■'f 

to ci m o to «o 05 »o oc>:o*t 

UOCCOO^N^CO l'- CO Cl 

^ --T o' -T ocT«o' co' cc' cf co' cT©' 
— — CO Cl GC l- O to GO 

d co © co co d to ci ci 


CO a h h GO Cl to Cl t^- GO 
CC O -r O 05 GO ’ — © * 05 cd 


OitOCO^^OOOCONOtO 

HdTOTr-.cci to t- o t- 
cc i - go »o to — ci — co o ci 

cP'O' GT* S cT• o'co'oo'to'co' 1 - 
co,— © — CO ^ to a rfrHCC’n' 
CO GO C5 X l- co 00 l- to 


to to ^ co to — Cl CO to Cl to Tf 
050— GOOO — — rH ‘coco 


Cl CO ‘O CO O O CO CO 05 Cl ‘O 

O 05 Cl Cl co rf« I - a o — 

to l - 05 — oo Cl Cl — Cl I - C5 1 - 

t— co'co't^'crTco' oT cf oPco'cT o' 
o co g i-co dec to co i-o 

CO CO CO Cl CO CO CO Cl Cl 


.s 

Hi 


c 

c3 

02 


>. 

o 

c 

5* 
<*! 
c -1 

O i 


«8 • 

© o c ^ 

p.+-> 'P 
or: h. sj 
tr ^ ^ 
-*•3*0 
coco 

y. t i. th tL 
C3 c3 c3 
•§.2.2.2 

<!OOU 


s* 

© S3 
^ c3 
^ 07 

X O 

— o 


SH 

®4J 


— 5 

fr- 

^ X 


X c3 o p 

S iJcfi a 
■° S-g «CB 

► 03 u h 

c3 C ^ 

r/ , t-* H. »- — 
fl — K'. ZL 
w x CC G C rl 
Vi O C ^ J i? 
C OT OT .2 *—iI 

^.a.SS " . 03 


c o 

tj. li 
CJ C3 

.2 *2 P OT OT * 
^ r; - 

oo 




o 

H 























































Exhibit 30 .—Comparative statement of tonnage and revenue on traffic to, from., and through southwest Missouri River points and to and from junc¬ 
tion points in Kansas and Nebraska on or south of the Beatrice Line 11 Consolidated” during the years 1905 and 1906 —Continued. 


122 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


T> 

3 

3 

O 

,3 


£ 


.a 


Ph 


® 

I 

a> 

> 

® 

pj 


3 

o 

Eh 


® 

Ph 


d 

3 

g 

Ph 


a 

o 

EH 


Ph 


Ph 


a 

o 

Eh 


CDCON (N 

oioiooOHoiHHCO * cc 


’t O CO (/) W O N H iO lO Cl 

NOir^ooeoTHOco^osN-’t 

(N T Tf O lO I - rH Ci 

T}T^r t Cio N *^'o'orco'ccro'o □o' 

iO lO G- Tf CC lO H CO O CM CO 


H CM 1 


CM ^ F- CO C 5 05 ^C 0 CM<N 
OOONGCHOHCi^ *1^00 


OOMOOOCOOOiOOiOiOOJ 

OOJOH^IOOOOOMNH'O 

C?GC*C>*C*COaQ*S'aDO> CM 
HWOO'tOSlQOJHH *0 O 
Tf lOCC^tO^ r-H CO ^ 


05 CM 00 CM 05 CM CD CO CO T-H 
C O H 00 O) H 'hh ' 00 CO 


OhC^ChcOCOiOCOOCCCC 
i0i0HTfH050iNOrfMH 
C »C CO CUO O CM CD (N 05 


< CO 1 


CO 05 CD 05 CD 05 CD CO CD 
OCOhCH * (N i-H * CD 


CD 00 CO CM O CD CD CD CO Tf CM CM 
rH Cl N N CO CD T}1 a D rH N D 
40 40 05 CO 40 40 iQ CO CM 


h 05 cm 05 co co co 05 u- 

CO oi lO lO CO CO * CM CM ‘lON 


OOONdN^MDiOHHCO 

CO^*OOrHNC>THrHlO(NOO 

05 co 05 co co 05 co cd >o 
co" oTr-H co'oT t-TcTciT oc cm" r-"o" 

C 'N Cl C I - r-i io CD OC : (N CO I>- 

a rH tt 05 c fhoo to 


CD(N00OO5C0CDiO»OC0O500 
r-H CM'H 40 CO CO ’ CM CM * iO CD 


CO rH CD CD N D IQ CD >0 00 N >Q 
iONCOHOODDCOCICOOh 
CD ‘O GC CO O »h CO Cl CO C (N O 

NGOh cOcOr^'oTcM'co'to'cTco' 
05 o ‘O 05 CO CM rji r-H O t— i 
H (N CM (N <N (N T-H r-H 


<15 

pH 


.3 

& 


CjS 

cu ® 

M 03 
h-5 3-i 
CO 


*•3 

>y^3 £ 

3 h-j ® p a> 

ML. ■ 


M o 

Co rj 

S-a 

<3 


W g 
<*}£ 
(3 o d d 

rr5r-. do 


cS- 


3 

c3 

cq 

=3 

Jh 3 3^3 

® O.S 1 ^ C3 O 

Pc3 ~ h- 3 te 4*! 02 

0~ »- 03.3 o t 

p^ 5 . _ _0 ' r fl 

O O O O O O CO 

eg M> bo 6 jo be tx c3 

’« 03 03 03 03 c/3 

•g.O.O.O^O^ p 

jq 2 2 2 2 id 

•CoooouW 


C3CO 


•r-T*rH 
tn t-i U* 

o 3 o 9 Cd 

00 CO 1 .JH h-3 rO 

5 . cQ 

S3 0*00 £ 


o 

Eh 


*o 

e. 

03 

t-h 

S3 

S 

e 

‘■o' 

o 

03 

»h 

vjC 

03 

03 

3~h 

«o 

03 

03 


<3^ 

C3 

03 


O 

03 

>1 

f2 

e 

V 

S3 

?- 

,o 


CQ 

fc> 

cc 

<N 

Ph 

°y 

l-H 

« 


i 

s 

o 

o 

b 

§ 

a 

o 

O 


3 

O 

O 


CQ 


s 

o 

't! 

S£ 

S 

o 

ro 

eo 

§ 

S3 

s 

e 

*5 

e 


cs 

!- 

o 

R, 


(S 


CO 

H 

5 

£ 

x 

w 


M 

3 

3 


03 

3 

3 

03 

M 

i 

a 

53 


3 

cq 

•3 

S 

’I 


■S 


J3 

H 


>* 


Ph 


Pi 


Ph 


3 

O 


CP 


P- 


3 

O 


® 

Ph 


Pi 


3 

3 


coo oo> 

r-H O O 03 


t~ lOOH 
O (r- I 'r rH 

CC 'JO 1- t'' 

o o' cC crT 

(N 'H’MCO 
•O CO CO 03 


IIM 00 

i 00 03 


03 t-h l> CO 

t-- CO tQ CO 
IM <N t" 03 

•TpOO IM oT 
CC 00 004 
Hf rJiOOII 


■OtCHN 
0 00 003 


05 0»0t>* 

l ^ CO 1-H 

cm o t-h 


OHIOCO 
O 05 00 05 


CD O 

S CM 05 05 
CD l- CD 

O cD^Tfi rtT 

u- co oo 

CO CO CD CO 


»H Tf CO (X) 

H D rH 


N »C t ^ CO 
CD CD D1 05 
CD 00 *-h to 

oTr^r-TtC 
CM cm i- CM 
40 C CD CD 


^ CM CD 40 
O OO 00 CM 


CD CD CM r-H 
O t-h CM rt« 
CM l- CM O 

O 00 05 T* 
iO«OC Tt 
^ CO 00 40 


03 . 

r-^ P 

zs*i: 

O’" >- 03 
End 3 ® 

>3«5 

c o o o 
bJDbJObjO 
? d d d 
•S o o o 

hh S 2 3 

<looo 


Ch 

O W 

































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 123 


o$ 05 *cm cm - oo id 


<000 CO r-* O CO O 

OCO'TWt'iOl' o 

iO<O*OWON^00 


OfNWO’tONC 

OHN^lOH! 
CS^rHCSCO *H | 


OOOiO^O-VOOO 
OJOJHNH * 00 <d 


^ co n co cc o 

O^’OO^CD'^O'^ 

W»C05NCDOiOO) 


o *o **r 10 oo t - cm 

CO CD O CS fH 00 --D 

HO co cm 


8 


OCWt^OOOCOHO 
oc5*h 'w'h *o»o 


I O CO CM O ^ 

cm* i ^ <d i - cm* oo od oo 
rH cm ec co ’<r oo io O- 
CCMHOOhiOO 


OHMDOCOXCO 
CCI-OCCCH^rrCNCM 
O CO CO T CM 


10 cm ^ go *>• 
od in h cd *h * o id 


<OOOCMOO-t»COCMO 

t^HKOHHCOW 


^^'TCifOCDCCW 
CSCM^o^CMi-HOrJ 
CO ^ ^ co cm 


CS|»-H»-»OOOiO^Tr 

ol Or- h o oo 


OM’tM’f OCCW 

r-OiOCDQcD^O 
cm *—• CM ■'T oo 


TroGco^t^ocooo 
Ci 00 CM* CM* 0 * rH id 


ioocohmono 

CD^COCMOOCOC 
X iO l O l O CO '1* cD 

CD ci X ‘O c »o O ^ 1 
OOOOOCM<MOO 
TffO H^ 1 ^ CM 




OtONO'l'iOHaoNiOUJ 

o 


G 

© 

o 

o: Oi ooci *GoS »-h iG cd *r^oo 

f-H rH rH 

s 


Sh 

© 

Ph 




Q 

«30C«iOtO®NOOO^<0'0' 

CO 

co 


3 

3 

03 

rr oi cB <30 oo to -r -h irJ o N 

N0>MXMHC0e0'*'0)N^' 

N V^wOXJNI'HOU'® 

cd 

co 

o 

8 

O 

rH 

►> 

© 

rr — NiflMOafflcOOOOO 
N^OnNCONSi'WOtO 
lOiOffiTOOKJMMO COCO 

cm" 

co 

o 

»H 

cJ 

K' ,NHHrt °* -' w 

<d' 

rH 

© 

J* 

Percent. 

e^TtitMOO<33003*fCOC3C30 

o 


0c6n00hO2hCS^ t^oc 

rH rH rH rH 

8 

rH 


Tons. 

OOCMOOOfOOO5cO0>O»OO5 

O0iCDHH«iQ00 05cSNHin 
rr r -1 05 H CD 'sC CD lO CN 

csTcTcm'o -r' c^T co oc" lid ocT aT m" 
HC^X^05i005r^H ICO 

rr io oo tt iq tj< hp. co 

001,621 




iQ 



05N00W05MCDXOC0HO 

O 


G 

© 

o 

© 

Ph 

OOH00C5H rH rH 00 

tH *H CS tH rH 

o 

o 

rH 



M«tiONNMOCOO«3® 

MNOOiOO'^COMrJ.Ol'-.w 

r- 

00 

id 

o 

o 

H 

3 

3 

03 

oCMev-i'Crtiofflcoi 
nN*iOI-®M'f lOOOOM 
05£30!N'i3 00t30rOCOlO«C003 

CM* 

38 

►> 

© 

Ph 

Om(NOh«W>C)WCOO()o6 

lO^Ci^'n'r-lOiOll^XlTrCM^H 
COiOCOCM^J® COCO CN 03 

1^. 

oc 

rH 

(h 

C3 

HHCOHHH rH rH 

id* 

rH 

© 

Percent. 

COOSOCOOSCOOSOCOCOCOO 

O O O O *-l CM rH 1^0 

H H CN rH rH rH 

100.0 

- 


Tons. 

516,055 
528,857 
973.915 
372,514 
530.319 
566,883 
46,214 
96,197 
563,188 
14,115 
372,800 
292,077 

Tf« 

co 

rH 

cd 

i- 

00 




rd 



TTCDN^COl'Nc:O5H'HC0 

O 


G 

© 

o 

Ih 

© 

Ph 

r- c C5 05 05 O CM rH 00 id 

rH rH rH rH rH 

8 


© 

G 

G 

© 

COHNCDI'XCOCDXCDOIO 

H^OiCCOC^^TpiDCOl^H 

osoc cdooidoornci^ocM 

iO n 1 ‘O I - D l Q O CN 07- •—< CM O 
OrrCOlOlT.OOOOCHlO 

CO 

a> 

s 

o 

t> 

© 

Ph 

oc cd o o o d Q d « d co d 

OSCIN^OOOCMCO^COCO 

t^HNCOCOiOHCO© Hl<» 

rH 

CO 

o 

H 

c3 


HH^HHH rH rn 

€*? 

rH 

© 

Per cent. 

COCS|O3CIO3COO3tMCC>^>'0C(N 

OHocodd cm’ rn *Tid 

rH rH rH rH rH rH 

100.0 


Tons. 

476,841 

503,039 

847,635 

457,847 

446,986 

477,821 

43,099 

120,497 

522,991 

16,661 

348,754 

231,792 

oo 

JO 

(Ji 

cd 

a> 

rr 






a *t« 
^ 03 


£ ° 
OT O 
w GO 

5*3 

K/I G 

ca 

*3^ 


t; £E? 

03 G S -* 

'S "w "G OT • 

2m S d o a! c 
C3 O 00 ;£ ^ 53 
£ -£ M S •« c3 co 

SSS 3 § o c| 

•m •— 3 . 2.22 3 .a 

SoWSSO'cqP^ 


■a 

+■> 

o 

E-| 


C3 


03 


•3 


3 

*sf§ £ 

G -<-* G © 
o w o Cv^ 

^ C 3 

oS.B-'es, o 

P-+- — -M > 02 

G^ - u .. JU 

O O O O C O to 

.2 bfi 6C be be bt e3 

p cs c3 c3 ca « cr, 

’S.G.S.iS.G.ii C 
■r £ ^ ,e ,G ,G. 1 =5 
"CUUOOOM 


: 


SS 

2 w 

I! 

HH C3 
Jh 

°dPH 


o d G 
22cc^= S 

Sr 03 03 
■N/ c3 So^ 

§S&!f 

C ° G ’ £ 
i/; o. .2 i—' G3 

.25.22 3 • «* 
5SO'£i£ 


o 

H 



























































































124 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


s 

3 

V. 

•<?» 

a 




CO 

. e 


« 


<3 

•*o 

ci 

CO 

H 

►H 

m 

M 

w 

« 

w 


00 

02 


PS 

s 

•8 


PS 


£ 

a 

o 

O 


a 

a 

o 

u 


3 

o 

u 


a 

02 


,3 


3 

'O 

o 

Sh 

a 


,3 

g 


rd 

H 


3 

T5 

o 

1-4 

P4 

3 

3 

(h 

o 


3 

*3 

u 


§ 

’© 

is 


O 

Eh 


Tf»COOOMlOHHO»CHO) 

oowowconoonwho>o 

OOOWWOlTfNOO) coo 


c/5 

M jM O 

®.a 3 

5 £-3 

O^o 

a 


jo 

Ph 


a 


3 

3 

© 

> 

© 

PS 


fo 


o 

e* 


P5 


c3 

o 


o 

O 


<D 

o3 

w 


05 

.a 

h) 


CO'OTfHHOOCOCCO 

OOCHCiOiOnaW 

XOCNCO^^rp'O 


r- o 

CO T-H 
05 O 


iH 05 O N H N CO lO N lO’t O 
OC' rt< 00 Tt« o w <N O H IO 05 
CSOOHTtitCOXVMN tp OO 


CO rH O 05 00 05 Tt< O 
OOajoir-NCONT^Tii 


O CO 

Ifi TT 


INO00MOONCN(N(N‘0 

COOHX-HC50^05CCNJ 

GHOOOOGCOINON^O^ 

cTt-T rCoTooV-T co' cT icT to' rjT 

HCV|(Nu:coCi05t005 t^O 
r—t rH H rH CN rH 

c/r 


tO^OfNOOOOCOOOC 
COTpOCOOOi»HN»OCOOC^ 
CN ‘O (N CM O ^ C H X rr iO O 


CO ^ h 05 O w Cl "O o —^ oc *o 
CNHhCOOCO'OOONO 
HOO^OOHrr»CNOCOHH 

ocrt'^'aTco'i^'crrto'o'o' i^cnT 

N C r-i CN LO (N C5 Tt« 


o ^ CO 
CO I - to 

05 <M 


(N ^ 
to '** <M 
rt< CO 


) rH to O r - 05 to rH CO CO 
■ OJOMOCUONHO 
iCOTjHOOCN^ l>. 


O t*h 
CO -t* 

O to 


c3 

Ou 


o 


is 

-^Ph 

3 

©P2 


3 
3 
O' 

^g^gEH 

o g © § ~<4 

bXi^ • "* 


c3 

II .s 

a+f PS .. & . . 


3 ^ 3 S 

C3 O c/3_, 

t^oq 313 

c3 o 


J5 O 
S o 

§ § 
W C3 
■-> 

°cSPh 

a c 

.3 c3 
3 c/2 


, 3 © ^ © >>3 a g k, 


OOOOOOt/^c-jt- 

cn bJCMfcjCtuD&Cca 3 3 
•3c3c3c3c3a3c/-, OO 
rd00©0©r<(0w 

•S22222 3-a 49 


o o d 

33,0 

•3 . c3 

<yo2>* 


o 

H 




















































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 125 


8 


1 

O 


d 

o 

(-4 

a. 

d 

feo 

d 

c3 

PI 


O 


<D 

Ph 


PS 


d 

o 


PS 


d 

o 

Eh 


P-( 


g 

o 

H 


NO’f 

oo d co 05 ^ 6 id co't 


oc 

Tf CD 


HOOJ»C'tN(Nrf>OWHQC 
lOWOJH^iCONCT CM CO 
OOOSCMO*C*-HTt<Tt«CM<Ot^^O 

io cT cm*' <dT o' o' o' ‘o' co'i-T 

IQ D f - 00 N C -H C GO OS CO 
*—< t-h CM »-h CM CM »-h CM h 


D05©ONOQNMiOQ»0 

r-i [>. D 't r>» O D N 00 ‘O 
CCCO'I’^iODJ'rHl^rfCJD 

^ rCCM'od'eo'eo' cd*' co' 
rH CO aco O'. ^ u Tf o CD OS 

HHrHHHH CM 


CO»OCO^CMOS^*-hiOCMCMCO 
r|5 OS CD CD ^ ‘D CM rH OS * iD iO 


lON^^HiOCDOOOS^OCM 

CM CO* ‘O CM d CM CM d CO CO* »C CO 
00 00 CM OS O C 5 h h 00 O ‘O 00 
H CD O H 00 H CD o -H HI »c *D 

r«oVo^ococr^ef 

5 -r CM O CO — — 

1 CO f-H CO CO 


CMcor^r^oscor^D-^CMCscM 

o^^r^-»C‘OcococMcO’^ , oo 

^DCO^t*CMOCOO'f^t«^T'asCM-f 

<dT CO'dT CM S rtTo'»o'cD' d' C'f 00 s cT 

»-• n« -t< O: »-« CO •—I rt< t>» GO 

CM r-H CM CM CM 


ND’t'HCMO^iO 

OODCCai’J'OOCO^ 


. oo 

• TT CD 


^ o o ic -r r- cm Tt* ic co h x 

IQ CC D H o ‘O C N oc CM CO 
GO D CM O 'O rf TfCJONO 

»C cTcM'd'crTo'cTcr‘O' co*'r-T 
iDOsr-oor-o —<cdoc csco 

H H (N H (N fl H CM i-H 


CO CO Tt* ^ *C os OS 1 


d 

T3 

o 

p 

fl 


c 


Pi 


o 

p 


p 


NNNa -T C-4 -T 


» » ^ CM 1- >C N t» O (* « 
H-COCMfCaiNMC'lfN 

o> t i'. *r ^ Tt< ti t~ © 


® 

p 


°y 


o 

=3 3 

o 
=3 
>-Ph 


p 


co. 


C +j ® pj a> 

C3 :|85!fl 

P*i '-5 +» k c/3 
o »- =3 x o . 
<! P ® S3 o ►>> 

rt -» n .P 

O O O O O O c/5 
c/s bt bJ. be b t. bL ct 
*d c3 c3 c3 c3 c3 co 
d o O O O O pj 

^ id d d d d , ^ 


o 

CO O 

C!> CJ 

jq .co 

S ‘3 

5 a 

“^P 


v 2 +5 

L „0 


f«S.3S 

So 

$ p « 

^hO 

’3 i >.’53 

CO CO M d d 

.2.22*3 * 03 

























































126 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


a. 

a 


I 

*5 


83 


*8 

a, 

Co 

JD 


CQ 

8S 

8 

« 

8 

o 


►■H. HO 

^ R, 

§ 25 

8 

<© 

?> o 
C {ft 


•to 

O c*, 

«.J 

53 83 




CO ^ 

HO HO 

^ § 
O ^> 

o'y 
^8 
.8 e 
| b 

5j.§ 

^3&; 

8 

53 


<3 

&s 


ta 

0 

oo 

H 

CM 

ft 

Pi 

ft 

•a 


Pi 


» 

3 

o 

CO 

.2 

a 

a 

o 

O 


o 

U 


3 

o 

O 


ft 

3 

CO 


c3 

+j 

CO 

T3 

9 

a 

0 


& 

© 


© 

to 

a 

3 

a 

3 

3 

C 

3 

0 

I 

a 

c3 

35 

3 

a 

« 


HO 

t 3 


•u 

P 

’2 

HO 

•S 

HO 

co 

O 


O 

s 

c 

•<r* 

0 



5r> 

4-» 

O 

3 

8 

0 

TJ 

O 


(-4 

ft 

1 

O 

Jh 

yi 

co 


co 

4-> 

•pH 


pQ 

►H 

m 

*-H 

Ci 

a 

yi 

K 

3 

w 

H 


§ 

© 

> 


.2 

33 

ft 

a 

© 

a 


CO ^ • 

•S-83 

.a«.a 

z* 3 O 

fi3ft 


o 

ft 

K 

ft 


c3 

-*— 

CO 


•3 

T3 


> 

TJ 

t-i 

03 

O 

33 

03 

© 

CO 


o 

to 

3 

o 

•pH 

33 

O 


o 

ft 

4-H 

3 

o 


3 -£ 
« o 
■5 P< 


- 3 03 

S'O-’S 

JC3 
. 03 3 
-40 ci 
CO K 


.a 3 

O o 
3'£ 
22 o 
ft 8 
^ 3 


o 

b/5 

03 

© 

2 

o 


ft 03 

OT32 
ft 3 3 
.33 
40 ci 
CO H 


© 

© 

§ 

£ 


.2 3 

o o 

Ch 40 

IH3 o 

fiS 


o 

tx 

c3 

5 

3 

o 


3 

A 


OC -r O 
CO -t< 
CO CD 


O 10 »0 -r< 
Oi CD CM 00 
Oi *“ 1 CM H 


WOCiO 
10 G (N N 
HOO'TH 


cm co ci 
-f o: co 

O GO CM 


CO O Oi co 
hcmn cm 

—ft l'- TT i-H 


«o o 

CO CM 
CD 


O CM 
CO -P 
Oi O 

CO CO 
CM 


-T O O H 

CM CO CM 
OCOHO 


r— 

CD CM 
CO CM 


00 CM Ci CO 00 CD 00 


CO -ft GO 
CO CD CM 
GO t-h -ft 


OGODN 
Ci O »C 00 
O CD I-* CM 


GO O --t 
CM CO O 
-ft CO 


C Ci CM 
CD -ft CD 
-ft CM H 


-ft Ci -ft CM 
I'-* t-h Ci —ft 

1C tC GO 

lo'coY^Vft' 


<D 

ft 

-*-> 

3 

CS 

02 


"3 


ft 1 . 

« :+» 

3 . in 


3 

c\ 


. c3 

;ft 

■•a 


o> t- 

© ® 
a -*-» © 

® • •*-> ft 3 

3 WS< c3 
© O 3 > 

•<-«•*»? 

O (-4 2; 

3 

-apop 

o o o' o o 

m MMM fctf 

^ c3 g 3 ^ oC 

Q -8 -Si .Sh .8 ■ 

•5 33 3 :22 1 

xiOOOO 


I'D 

. 3 

. «3 


. O 

, o 
:« 

• o 


ti vi . 
3 3 o 
O to ,3 
02 333 
k ta o 

s«S 

O-p^-pH 

b b 

C3 P p 
co O O 

fl W K 
2 (/] C/j 

Cu •—I »p-i 
k-H V«H 
K5 ^4 




“3 


M 


o ft o 

' 30 ^ 

O' 02 


233 


O 

H 




















































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 127 


Total. 

Per cent. 

00 05 CO 05 O lO CO H 

rH rH rH r—t « 

co 

100 

Tons. 

rH 05 TT Tf I - o O) N Tf OC' C5 

r-7 co ^H i^c s i'oo'co'co' co co 

Hf:OWOrrNTO CO 05 

rH rH rH rH rH rH Ol 

1,401,404 

Other 

points. 

CO 0> I'r co 05 

CO O CO 05 05 CO 
OCOHTfOO 

H rH 

N N • 

co • 

rH • 

. !>• 
:8 
• CO 

19,179 

Wisconsin 

points. 

»-h • *—« o o »o 

O • O M X GO 
<N • CO H 00 

• CO o 

1 ^ 


CO • 


14,893 

Hastings, 
Lake City, 
Winona. 

• . ^ (M 00 • 

• . iO l>- CO • 

• • rH l-» • 

• of ’ 


1 1 


2,994 

Toledo. 

eei 


20 

. 

* CO 

• CM 

rH 

00 

South¬ 

eastern 

and 

Carolina 

territory. 

05 TT OC OC • 03 O CO CO • 
iO CO 00 ' • H* CO cO 05 • 

CO CO .'I’HQOO . 

vco • co <m <m icT • 

H • 04 • 

ljo, 647 
2,301 

s 

co 

00 

St. Louis 
and 
Hanni¬ 
bal. 

CO <M 00 CO • O 04 CO 04 CO 

(M CO 04 • CO rH rH CO CO 

CM 00 • rH 00 cO rH 

t-h » ^O rH 

<M • rH 

• CO 

• ‘O 

• rH 

• »o 

• rH 

58,465 

Mobile 
and New 
Orleans. 

• cO cO • i to O 

• • O • • >0 rH 

• o • • © o 

• 04 OCT • • CO rH 

rH • 

04 • 
TT . 

oT • 

6,122 

889 

00 

O 

00. 

H*' 

CO 

Missis¬ 

sippi 

Valley 

territory. 

*XH 04 oc <m 

• GO • I-H 10 "O 
. CO • 04 04 

. 

S6Z/8 

1,566 

25 

6, 605 

Mississippi I 
River 
points 
north of 
St. Louis to 

Dubuque. 

O CO 04 O rH to 

CO rH -s-o OC' CO 

CO 00 O 04 »C O 

HH 04 rH 

rr CO *H 

2,375 

9,110 

152 

71 

15,726 

114,489 

Minneapo¬ 
lis, St. Paul, 
and 

Duluth. 

(M 05 fO cO 02 H 

o ~ 1 co iO © CO 

Hf* CO ^ ^ 

^OiOON 

IO (M H 


• rH 

. 00 

• 00 

• rH 

• rH 

• 00 

• CO 

102,755 

Milwau¬ 

kee. 

O X O lO ^ •’f 

HTf Nh-COH 
iO CO cs N to D> 

rH 00 OT 

CO 


• »o 

• 05 

• CO 

88 

O 

O 

!>• 

rH 

lO 

Lines. 

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. 

Chicago & Alton . 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy. 

Chicago Great Western . 

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul. 
Chi ‘ago, Hock Island & Pacific. 

• 

• c 

! 

3* 

5*i 

Q 

it 

n \ 

7: 

3 

25 

m.J.oauuii, ivaiioaa ix lo-vao . 

Missouri Pacific . 

Oninev. Omaha & Kansas Citv 

St. Louis & San Francisco . 

Wabash . 

0 

Total . 

































































128 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


"e 

£ 


ts 

S 

£ 

o 


o 


*- 

o 

►o 

C3 

M3 

*? 50 

S l o 

•<s> 

o 

•40 

s s 

•cO 

.^g 

* s 

<o SO 
- Co 

o ^ 

•fl> 

~.S 

£ s 
a, ^ 

O Qh 

fc*? 

|4 

?! Oi 


O 

-c; 

CO 


£ S*> 

g Ca> 

l.g 

■40 t 

C3 ^ 

CO O 

^ CO 
<3 so 

• ^ 5^ 

so -S* 
>s O 
^ Ps 

I 


£ 

* (O 

s 


cO 

05 


•tf 

TO 

HH 

ca 
>—< 
S3 
X 

m 


oo 


>> 

Ph 

Ph' 

•3 


Ph 


o 


a 

a 

o 

O 


a 

a 

o 

O. 


n 

o 

o 


ft 

s 

GO 

GO 

fl> 


© 

-A 


to 

a 

as 


a 

C3 

■I 

fl 

a 

« 

.3 


■a 

© 

V-. 

o 

fl 


as 

ts 

o 


J3 

H 


a 

‘3 

Ph 

3 

> 

2 

a 

o 

OT 

.to 

3 

a 


£ 

-fl 

as 

o 

GO 


T3 • 

a 03 

03 -t-9 

fc. o 

O 


CO ^ 


c3 


flCS o 
o g o.-y 
H^aa £ 

03 © 


„ R h 
5 6 g S 

**“’ c3 £ 

<v S 

CO 


c3 

rO 

c3 


OC^CO^COCO^NOOJCOOOOOCO-^O'H 

«o co t- t-h iq <o ^ oo <x; oc co i- co r- ‘O 
GhhCOO’TOOOhCOXNhhCGcO 


(/> O N CC CN CO O 
rS O CC '-O *r »o 

TT CO 05 cc O O ■n' 


MHOO^iO^O^'sCTfsNO’tCCOO 
C W 05 CO N N lO (N O 1C O H OO C ( ^ N CO 
OOINWh^CCCChioiON © »0 O CO 


CClO‘OH1sr-lh. 

OOiOOOOOcOiO 
H M30 C 00 o 


iot^oor^ io n o*q nh tt o 


^ Oi r-s 

OlOCOlO 
rr «C © rr 


CCHCO^fNOOCCXcOCO^HfMC.H 

iOC«O^^NHHN050NXC® 
HOOO»Or-COWOOINCO »—I O 


« 00 OC CO 


<N CO 


HOcD-^C^t^CiOCO 
OTt*cO»OCO^D<NTrO 
OCiOCHfO rrd 


•a c3 

|i« 

M gcPh 

5 *3 


©sa 

pS' 
cO 


C3 * r ^ 
M w 


© ■** >o co 

O rr N (N Cl 
C4 CO 05 CO 


o .© 

GO o 

.2 C3 

SPh 


V oo w 

*3 c3 

rr O} X 

2h® 

I e3^( 

1-^ K) 

°c 


C'ioicic(/:ococoC'N 
CCl-O'TCO -Irf ^THH 
rr iQ iO h r—i 


• O CO CO 

rH 05 r- H 

*-» CO 


(MOOOWl’O 

(N WO O T »-H 


03 2 

c3 k 
c o -© 

b ,pH ■*-» 

c3 rj 73 

w I 


o~ *eS 

Sf-g'ga 

o o fl o 

SPi-p 53 

o 


O Cl O rf N 
r—» © 05 y —I CD 
SJ4 1—I 


<N r- »C IN JO 00 CO CO 00 OC' N 
HiCHOcoosicM^rNw 
O 00 C1N CO S31 


o 

£f t* ^ . 
os J5 w a 

o 2 ® S 
IflojiP ® 
a 


O <2 

Sf ©b 

>> 

o 



’rfl a 

s 


O' 


o 

so a 

03 o 

g ^ 


.j. os 
'o ^ 08 fl ® 

-fl C 3, 

-< o xm 


rfHlMOiOOOOO-^COHO^COH 
TfCOHCO'-iHrrTfi>Q»r(j5(M'H(MCi 
Tf 03 10 01CDN (N 1—• sf(N 


O^GC»-HT-H(MCSllOt^40 

•^rcDcricrc^O'^r^o 

COCCC1NICH (M 


ts (N IN CO iO 00 
Cj OC N h O 00 
N O N C (N CO 


tthNhh 


00 N c N 05 IQ o CO O H ^ 
C N (73 N CO 'X' rH © Oi O 
T’CCCCOM CO 


NOIONNCOOONNCOO 
cDoor^<^o^H-r»-Hco3 0C'C^iO(M 
H lO lO ‘O ■’f -H —'CO 


T5 

o 

a 

a 

o 

O 


w „ 

a >» 

03 . 

ei 

p> 

a cf 


CZ3 


CO o 
t-1 o 
p <» 

Phczj 


• O lO 

CO to 

to <fl 


i^.fl 

'S. SO 

fcJO 
T3 fl 

caa 

CS,-, 

fl 


-■S ©'SICPOQW’3 o g-jg ca 

rC o b; ,2 i2 pS i2,2 bjo2i a <& 




OnlNhOOC'lClC 
CO lO lO X X o s 
CM 90 00 H 1/3 O O 


CM C3 CJ t-- 

03 oC' o> cm 

CM i/3I^H 


CO • CO t"- <N 




* iiti • 

O ■ M 1.3 i(3 




* CO * * • 1 MTjl , 

»-H • O 






PQ 


y.z 

o ® 
PQ 


T3 

o 

o 

SsC 

-as -e 

fl 

c c 

a a 

c3 ® 

oo 


c3 'X 

.fl § 


IOtMi/3 
3 CM CM CM 


o ; © 

® a ; « 

5 g" tc* fl 

x’ p 2 ft f 


ctscsfca. ^flcsbfl^S 

O O O O O’—* S'—" >- o 

OOOOOhPOOhl 


26,590 ' .28,345 




















































































































Lemons, oranges 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, 


MO., TO THE MOUTH. 129 


•V05C0H 

00 00 1 -H o 

cTeiV^T 


OCOiH( 
05 to CM < 
05 05 i-H * 


s 


HCOO) CO CO CO 00 ^ 
05 CO ^ CO t- CM t'- 04 
OOrHOO OcO»OCN 


H CO 05 05 40 
CO C C N ^ 
O CO 00 ‘O CO 


CONcOMCiOrf 
O^N^iOcOO 
CO 05 00 CO O 40 

f ^ co" oT 


8 


* 

ft 

■t) 

g 


a 


■T3 
Pi 
. c3 


2 ft 
® ~ 
„tuO 


/G ft a 
ft® eft 
© d *g 

+> 55 

^ C -P S 
C3 O O g 

• i-H ,Q 

w ft+j -w ^ 

C3 „o © . 
G © O ft & 

P1.HP3P3 c3 
hCO(^i 


OjO .•— 

.9 
ftd a 


CO o ^ 
CN ^ CO 
<M 1-H 40 


8 ! 


> co < 

I <N i 


. ft 

: g 

; c« 

0*0 
£ fl 
c-a « 

c'G ri 
(- C3.2 
.‘7 c u 

r< ft fc-. © 

Oft^ G 

t- cl o3 2 

g <- a 

g-O-, 

L r<I) 
r< /-* 


S 

p. 


oj > *-» ft# 

CZ u - ~ w £ a> ;£ 

£ .Sf.hr-tr’cS 5 P.S75 

^CL,pHp3tf " 


1C t- »C N 

05 ^ 05 40 

coo w 


O 


o »o 


8 


CO N C O 
40 »o "*T »—I '*V 
VO TT 


40 


rr 40 »0 CO <M 
h XO V O 
1-H »0 <M 


8 ! 


8 


CO 


C^NcC-V-fHCOO- 
ic r-. V X 1C <N CO 
40 TT i-H 40 


„-8 


NiO (NO 


S S’ 


CO 40 

o o 

»viH 

3 


c5 05 


8 *? 

<N 40 


40 00 
C5 . 
00 CO 


oc ^ 

i-H • 

05 


CO L- 
ffi CO 


TT 40 

o . 

40 O 


CO <N 
05 . 

*«r f-h 


O co 

o . 

O 1-H 


l- <M 

of 


40 Tf 

00 . 


CO 05 

o . 

TT 00 


00 o 

co . 

r-H 05 


'TT CO 

. 

co i- 


o 0 
co -r 


40 l- 

o . 

00 05 


05 


CO CO TT 1 

CO . I— 

O t>» 1-H < 

of cT 

05 


G 3 
.eft 

’■s £ 

CS’g 

«s 

oT 


c5 ’ 


C3 _ 

« ftg 

73 p G 
d © G ft « 


ft 48 

W 02 


C3 . „ 

~ O (- 

r~! Q- C3 'JIJ C3 . w w- 

*! cj'C-g w.firi 0.2 
c3oo M G:r'®>^ft 
02 02 02 02 E"* ft ft ft H 


w *0 © 

•—- ^ o o 


C3 

o 

ft 

c3 


, . O »H J- 

7, © o -2 
— -©> G ©> G 
"7 © _ ’G ® 
rt © «- « ^ 

o 4 ^ ® c* 4 © 

E-i PiH ft 


H. Doc. 463, 64-1- 


9 


•is 


^ o 

CM . 

i-H TJ1 


OC CO 

i-H . 

050 


00 . 

O 05 


co co 

05 • 

r-H 


c3 o 

05 


40 00 
00 . 

05 Tf 


o ^ 

CM GO 


'C V 

c 0 

cz ^ 
»-• a> 
CAh 


o 

»d 

M 

M 

H-5 

a 

o 


T3 

© 

-*ft> 

o 

d 

T3 


o § 


a 

•G 

C3 

G3 

O 


G 

o 

G3 

C3 

a 


G 

.0 

co 

.a 

a 

a 

o 

O 

© 

.a 

ft 

G 


© 

J£ 

>. 

G2 


rt 

ft 

© 


I 

1 




























































































130 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


o 


a 

w 


o 

x 

S3 

o 


o 

ft 

ft 

a 

o 

H 

to 

C3 

3 

a 

o 


3_; 

a cs 

C3 

s-. O 

o ■** 


•*»<C<5 00CCiift—•<Nt^iOCCt'-C<li-IO 
INC/laDlONtD^TlirHTlU^lOMlO 
(OOOOOOM(NT)'ir5«5u'5®Hir3N 

tO ft "tO CC tO Oi H rT t-T' f 


r-. . 53 , . 

^ S ft 

4_- >-« j_> *-< 

O O rv ^ b 

y jr <d o 

H «*- JZj -M +■» 

c3 


c3 0 c3 o 

o Pd-h 

£-i v-. g3 ^ 
<D S 


g 2 


o 

rC ^ # 

1-8^1 e 

ft ® 

o 


o s 

6 £ ®“ g 
ah'*-8 ft 
o3 


3 • 

a cs 

C3 - 4-3 

■a o 


kOCONt^OO(McD«)HiO(N^05 

i>03CNt^»OC©CO^'t^CNCO*OCO*0 

NCOcOOSiO'VCO^^OOOHCO^ 

-^tT ^<S t-Tio" r-T h'hh^ 


a>t^LOCOCOHOHl>.h.C^ 
ttGOiQI^^OhOCOCStP 
OOt^QCcO^t^ CN f-H 


• r^cowo 

i *D H (N CO 
I *—I CN 


^-(NNINhWO^N 

MO5C0CO^NHCOH 

tPHINNNIN 


O lO CC' 00 CO CN 
Oi M CD ^ 
ITPIO COHC^ 




1—4 05 

>C t- 
*o t~ 


ONNMCO® N 
05 1 -t 00 00 C-~ 1-1 05 
CO 05 r-4 TJ< t~- 00 CO 

rPofco'cNW' IN 


f-H 05 
lO l'- 
ic l' 


OMHHOOlOTtl 

05 05 CC O 1—4 ■'£ 
CO CO H CO O CO 00 

r-T <n cc in ft' of 


> O ^JI 


83‘ 


W^OCOWHiOWOOJONWlND'fCO 
■ cO00QQNN-^M(NN‘CC<IO5gscO*HN 
NQW»OC^TMN<N^C5^l^^COHrr 


H (M iO rt 1 H tO C5 
O O 1» CO ^ PJ 
CC lO O 00 w 


r^T if?. co" t—T coTaT wco' ccTicT o 

(N n Cl CO r-H 3T 


© K^> 

C3 gift g 

-*-2 £ 4-> >3 

o O o.« 

c— .H - 
tr 1 «-« — 

ts ® 


_ ■g ft 
c3 0 c3 o 
-£ § o+j 

r o g^r 

fc-1 ■ 03 !_, 
05 05 

CO 4-5 


A-S 




g So 


3 fl 

^ CD 


S) 43 ft . 

c3 -£ co rj 

.2 “8 S£ S 

43 ® 

O 


O 


CJ o C3 o 

£ft 2 
a ^ 


C3 

ft 


0 3 

^ £3 <x> ^ 

433 “3ft 


o 

<5£tfft . 

sSsg 

ftS£ s 
o 


C/5-^ri0'S < i-H00'^ l OCCiC0t^t^05C0r-<4t1O5 
HTfPINOfflHNl^nCSINffllMHHH 
['OOlOiOOOlMC'COOIOt'iOOIOri'" 

K_ CM /-.^i rs/“s /-“"s fVl »/“i > ri . /-Fs __. z»z-s /— 


O ^ lO O o o 

CD 00 CO a; iO 05 CO 
iO CM Cl »0 OCi CD O 


t^'ci'ccccc^oooi'^^ icTco # 

H H H N Tf r-H CO 


rH CO O- 


NOOiC'lrHCOHdTfCDCO 

hOC^cDM^COOtPOiO 

CDCOrM^iCHC^iOiOHW 

^ CoVh r-T 


N00H-*tOC^ 
1^ H (N CO (M H 
CO H CO H 


HTf O^COW 

lO IO 05 H ^ O 

CO t-H t-H »-H 


TfDCDCDiOcOcCHiOOOOJ 
COCOCOOOIOQOCOHO 
Cl rr Tf IQ ^ (N H 


C 05 05 CO O W 

CON ^ ^ XN 

CO ^ CD <M 


iONiDfhG5 00 
cr.' rH tji 00 co 
mo N ON IO H 


COOC5HLOOOIOH 
(M 05 O -H CO CD rH CD rH 
O CO N O 00 H 


CO 


O o 

tc«a.a 

g ffi s § 


-3 

I 

E 

o 

o 


HNrtOCOCOiON®aN 
00 IC 1^ M H CC 04 i—IG5COIN 
CCOOCCOOt-'IN t-i i—l IO 


ft 


oSc; 

■3 ° x; 

S.S {2 
gs3 5 
Oiftft 


3 

2 

+3 C/5 

ft n 
ft O 


85 


ft-S 
ft t? 

a ccT 


CS-S 
h ft 


ft tJO 

2.S 

ft 

tJO 

3 a 
Sft 
s 3 

ftftPH 3 o § 

CO C/5 W CO .Si "S 3T 43 C/5 


‘8 

in' 


05 

>. 

rt ft 
2 § 
GO 43 
5- ^ 

3 >~ 

3ft 

c a 

ci O 


rj^ r- os io 
H CN rf 1 CO CO 
ClHHCNO 


8 


CD CO CD OO CN 
03 CO 00 ^ CO 

*-H r-H 03 


ic co o 

03 CN »0 
CN 


03 CO O CC 
^COCOOh 
Cl N CD 00 



55 « W m "3:333 w l)®” O C 2_r_rw vi^ 

llll ft&^S-E g ® g I g g'g'g 

OOUO<!<;<l<lffl WPQft QOOOOO 


85 


CO ^ \o 
C3 00 CN 
CD CO 00 


85 


00 o o 
CO CO 
CD CO t- 


85 


8 ! 


CO 00 03 o o 

CN O O 03 CO 

io co oo co o 


■^r oo cn 
cn in o 

CO CN tO 


'Tf O 
t ^ 00 
CO O 


00 


C3 

T3 

gj S3 


2 x a 
3 

ft ft ft 


o 


2 ft 

C3 ^ 
^ © 
a.s 

pi 






















































































































Oil, cotto: 


MISSOURI RIVER EROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 131 


MO 05 OONiO 

NO 

CO 00 r-» CM 


OlOlO 

^ r-H r-H 

CM T}i 


CO CN CO I s - r* 
CICON^CO 
CO O H 00 O 

co x*r 


CO o 
o . 


CO o 
o . 

CO O 
►O 


CO CO to O CO CO 00 
CO 05 tO 05 CM 05 

CM CM -rf »—< r-H 


05 r-H r-H 
r-H 

OO" r-T 


CO CM CO O 

o . o . 

00 rH 00 O 

-05 -O 


8 


n 


a 


co 

-CM 

CO 

CO 


s 


>J3 


! CM 


IS 

CM 


HH tO CO 


s, 


CO CO 
CO . 

to co 
-co 


HCOIO 
CO CO H 

o 


tO ^ 

CM CM* 
-tO 
co 


00 05 
► CO 
00 


s 


?-H tO 

00 r? 

r-H CM 

cmV-T 


Tf C5^ HCO 
05 h t— o o 
co to t>- v- 


00 CO 00 tO C5 
^005^^ 
l'- 05 lO CM 


05 CM co 05 TJ» CO H H 'j' 


IOCOOC5N 

oo oo 

t"- Tf H t^- 
TT o TfN Tf*' 


H O 

-o 

00 r-H 


HTf O0 C5 00 CM 

oc r>- ncocoq 
ho ^ co rr Cm 

cm" o' oc" cm" co oT V s 


tO 00 tO ^ 
CO GO 05 to CO 

TT to to CM 


CO to 05 CO 
O H CO O 05 

ocT l'-" CO 


s 


CM CM CM O 


°~g 


s 


) CO < 
i CM • 


CO co < 


C5COOOH 
co to CM r-H —i 
NOHHGO 


CO CO 
§ to 

s 


a 


IMOHOl 


r-H • N 


CM co 

r-H • 

cm' 


g< 




CO CM 

o . 

05 TJ1 


CM to to to 

to . to . 

CM O 


r-H CO 


r- co 
CO 00 


a 


co t'- 


CO CO 
■*f • 

cm r— 


CM CO 

I-H CO 

CM 


o ^ 

p< 

o - 
_ ►to 

^s.s 

® 3-0- 
H o 3. 

i£ 

® .H 

P- a, 
>_-p, 

« c3 
OPh 


O CO to 


CO »-H 
to r-H 


CO CM 

05 . 

to T 1 


O CM 
CO • 
CM ^ 


CO to CO 
occt- 
CO t» 


_ s 


: p 
c *2 

fa £ 

O ^ ^2 

u C3 2 

‘7 o‘H 

C-^ H QJ 

OrP-- ■§ 

s- tx s3 eS 

2 g"a . . 

P C C§ 312 ' ’ 

g* © ®a|^| 4 ; 
£.$£.£•.£-3 3 Pce^ 

PPPtftf tfcfi 


e 

p 

'S 

© 


'3 

S3 

ot w 
3 t3 
C5 a 

® <33 


.3 ©■ 

IT. 

c3 c3 




rH O 


co 

r—H • 
r-H to 

► CM 

^H 

CM 


Td 

S-4 

CG 

c 

rC 

c3 

05 


<= pg 

■C 3 

3Jg»J 


r* P. 03 
OT <33 T3 
(33 0 0 
COCCCQ 


P ^ c. ci . 3 © 
13 C3 —— ® o o 
•-( W) nS.S O !9 


S r* 

go^o 

i; ^ 3 3 +j 

£ ? — >- r: 

C3 !_ © u3 |_ P 

O*^ © O-*^ © 

Eh P.ei P« 


c3 

3 

C 

3 

u ® 


<33 

-O © 

3 ® 

(33 (-. 
© 
UP 







































































































132 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

Exhibit 35. —Recapitulated earnings on selected eastbound rail and export tonnage from 
and via Kansas City only, originating in Kansas City, southern Nebraska, and State 
of Kansas . 


Commodities. 

Freight 

charges. 1 


$3,909,140.61 
97,471.92 
62,523.28 
722,418.40 
182,89?. 88 
8,230. 00 
215,030.20 
53' 274.00 
40', 654.90 
30,244.50 
419,277.98 


Oats rye and harley . 


Meal bran and chops... 

Seeds and castor beans. 

Hay and broom corn. 

Junk and scrap iron. 

Lead spelter hnllinn and acid. 

Potatoes and apples... 

Fuel oil, naphtha, etc.. 

Total revenue. 

5,741,158. 70 

4,181,362. 51 

1906 eastbound revenue classified traffic from and via Kansas City, St. Joseph, Atchison, 
and Leavenworth. 

Gain 1914 revenue via Kansas City over 1906 via all lower river cities. 

1,559, 796.19 
37.3 

Percentage of gain... 



1 Based on rail rates shown below. 


Destinations. 


Rate used from Kan¬ 
sas City. 


Chicago and Milwaukee. Chicago- 

Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Lake Superior ports.. Minneapolis 


Mississippi River,Illinois, and Wisconsin points. 


St. Louis 


Mississippi Valley. 

Southeast. 

Atlantic ports. 

Middle States and seaboard 
Gulf ports. 


New Orleans. 

Thebes and Cairo 

St. Louis. 


19J on wheat; 18^ on 
corn; 35 on apples; 
42 on potatoes. 


Remarks. 


Same rates. 

Minneapolis rate, 12 cents. 

Lake Superior ports take 17 
cents on wheat; other com- 
m o d i t i es proportionately 
higher. 

St. Louis rate 9 cents. Rates 
run as high as 15f cents on 
wheat; other commodities 
proportionately higher. 

Basing point rates. 

Rates not shown on statement. 


Commodities. 

Basing rates on— 


Seeds and castor beans. 

Seeds... 

Castor-bean rate is high-r by 
from 3 to 9 cents. 

Broom-corn rate is hig' \r by 
from 16^ to 33J cents. 

Acid rate higher by from to 5 
cents, except to Mempt.’s, 
where no commodity rate is 
carried on lead, etc. 

Hay and broom corn. 

Hay. 

Lead, spelter, bullion, and acid... 

Lead, spelter, and bul¬ 
lion. 

Divided tonnage 
evenly and used rate 
for each. 

Potatoes and apples. 





















































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 133 

Exhibit 36. Mileage operated, density of freight traffic , economies infreight-train loading, 
average distance haul, and ton-mile earnings for fiscal years as shown of Mississippi- 
Missoun River lines, except Illinois Central. 


[Note.—F igures for M. K. & T. Ry. for 1913 include data for M. K. & T. t M. K. & T. of Texas Texas 
Central Ry. W. F. & N W. Ry., W. F. & S. W., W. F. & W. of Texas, W. F. Ry.. D. B. & N.O. Ry., 
1>. C. & S. \\ . Ry., M. K. & T. Term. Co. of St. Louis, and Boonevffle R. R. Bridge Co. Authority 

Interstate Commerce Commission’s “Statistics of Railways in U. S.”] b y 

(Statistics in this form available only for period shown.) 

AVERAGE MILES OPERATED. 


Line. 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

Atchison, Topeka <fc Santa Fe. 

7,114.30 

7,460. 51 
9,023.09 
998.08 
6,177.12 
818. 36 

7.511.73 
7,407. 54 

3.491.73 
267.64 

2,514.60 
1,724.19 
4,726.64 

7.472.31 
9,023.06 

998.08 
6,169. 00 

1.239.32 
7,511.56 
7,400. 33 
3,882. 49 

268. 21 
2,514.60 
1,724.19 
4,726.39 

7,549.69 
9,074. 84 
1,025.11 
7,718. 72 
1,496. 22 
7,511.44 
7,551.16 
3,916.25 
268. 54 
2,514.60 
1,737.00 
4,731.88 

8,200. 86 
9,074.10 
1,025.72 
7,858.87 
1,496.22 
7,511.41 
7,566. 05 

i Qia os 

8,237.55 
9,128.51 
1,032.08 
7,974. 24 
1,496.22 
9,710.02 
7,572.53 
3,919. 58 
268. 47 
2,514.60 
3,677. 47 
4,741.58 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy. 

8,977. 25 
993. 88 
6,172.63 

Chicago & Alton. 

Chicago & North Western. 

Chicago Great Western. 

818.36 
7,499.23 
7,384.50 

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul. 

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific. 

Missouri Pacific. 

3,491.68 

Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City. 

267.64 

268.47 

9 fin 

Wabash. 

2,514. 80 
1,728.19 
4,726.64 

Missouri, Kansas & Texas. 

1,744.41 

4,733.97 

St. Louis & San Francisco. 


TONS OF FREIGHT 1 MILE PER MILE OF ROAD. 

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. 

765,417 
735,708 
1,264,672 
633,881 

678,717 

757,977 

824,016 

744,952 
784,4G9 
1,493,435 
703,963 
822,896 
708,712 
601,366 
490,948 
175,844 

715,297 
845,900 
1,576,270 
654,882 
818,889 
679,745 
582,893 
515,270 
229,689 
1,243,703 
637,884 
550,749 

762,668 
965,083 
1,722,975 
786,902 
894,069 
866,258 
656,012 
631,936 
238,734 
1,480,374 
497,766 
633,906 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy. 

733,715 

Chicago & Alton... 

1,342,532 
636,972 
1,109,938 
672,485 

1,365,832 
729 094 

Chicago & North Western. 

Chicago Great Western. 

1,031,595 

664,133 

680,078 
709,161 
581,272 

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul.... 

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific. 

530,131 

Missouri Pacific. 

499,527 

590,400 

552,683 

262,967 

1,322,598 

528,021 

576,083 

Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City. 

210,240 
1,186,364 
496,138 

230,690 
1,173,154 

Wabash. 1 . 

1,329'535 
609,311 
545,701 

Missouri, Kansas & Texas. 

526,731 

513,085 

St. Louis & San Francisco. 

500'964 


AVERAGE TONS 

OF FREIGHT PER TRAIN MILE. 



Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. 

311.55 

301. 57 

289. 39 

318. 22 

326. 44 

350.36 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy. 

3S4. 26 

387.44 

381.26 

406. 33 

437.75 

483.83 

Chicago & Alton.*. 

407.21 

410. 08 

383. 07 

395. 96 

423.63 

483.20 

Chicago & North Western. 

261.66 

260.13 

260. 71 

276. 54 

298.94 

347. 97 

Chicago Great Western,.. 

285. 96 

297. 47 

302.52 

369.35 

399.64 

449. 89 

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul. 

273.59 

273.73 

275.70 

274.69 

288.16 

' 346.95 

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific. 

265.65 

257.83 

269.03 

276. 87 

354. 38 

Missouri Pacific. 

241. 72 

232.10 

239. 86 

236.37 

270. 91 

317.47 

Quincv, Omaha & Kansas City. 

161.71 

156. 49 

179. 35 

129. 80 

150. 43 

160.37 

W abash. 

361.14 

351.97 

352.70 

344. 38 

357. 75 

395.33 

Missouri, Kansas & Texas... 

219. 04 

233.63 

216. 21 

261. 80 

289. 87 

242.97 

St. Louis & San Francisco. 

215.69 

226.59 

227.32 

227. 08 

262. 28 

287.90 



AVERAGE DISTANCE HAUL, 1 TON, MILES. 


Atchison Topeka Sr Santa Fe. 

389.40 

361.60 

353.11 

342.97 

323.85 

296.61 

Burlington & Ouinov. 

267.62 

264.24 

266.80 

251.20 

254.92 

263.30 

Cbieapo A- Altnn.... 

160.01 

158.81 

160.15 

160.35 

159. 70 

165.51 

Chicago Sr North Western ...... 

158.07 

148.31 

141.40 

147.92 

138.11 

140.12 

Fhieago Oreat, Western ... 

267.71 

256.39 

258.65 

244. 45 

242. 41 

252.08 

Chicago Milwaukee A St. Paul. 

190.17 

183.69 

173.52 

198.68 

192.12 

227.31 

Chicago Book Island Sr. Pacific_ 

234.86 

229.58 

239.98 

237.61 

294.98 

Missouri Pacific... 

181.70 

177.36 

184.61 

176.83 

189. 79 

195.09 

Qviiuey Omaha A- Kansas City. 

101.63 

96.21 

98.41 

89.34 

95.29 

99.89 

W ahash ... 

242.47 

234.94 

237.51 

236. 48 

231.72 

238.26 

Missouri Kansas Sr Texas..... 

236. 57 

219.94 

216.66 

191.39 

186.94 

206.27 

St Lnnis Sr San Francisco. 

172.72 

167.11 

167.30 

163.98 

167.27 

166.21 






























































































134 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


Exhibit 36 .—Mileage operated, density of freight traffic, economies in freight train load¬ 
ing, average distance haul, and ton-mile earnings for fiscal years as shown of Missis¬ 
sippi River lines except Illinois Central —Continued. 

AVERAGE RECEIPTS PER TON MILES. 


Line. 

1908 

1909 

1910 

1911 

1912 

1913 

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. 

Cents. 

.945 

Cents. 

1.025 

Cents. 

1.036 

Cents. 

1.05 

Cents. 

1.047 

Cents. 

1.030 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy. 

. 796 

.789 

.783 

.816 

.752 

.729 

Chicago & Alton. 1 . 

.610 

.570 

.598 

.606 

.576 

.561 

Chicago & North Western. 

.867 

.897 

.891 

.902 

.907 

.870 

Chicago Great Western. 

.645 

.617 

.716 

.718 

.725 

.732 

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul. 

.81? 

.838 

.843 

.841 

.839 

.888 

.788 

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific. 

.931 

.916 

.912 

.885 

Missouri Pacific. 

.851 

.863 

.878 

.896 

.868 

.829 

Quincv, Omaha & Kansas City. 

.831 

.855 

.808 

.942 

.989 

.929 

Wabash. 

.573 

.582 

.586 

.603 

.61 

.585 

Missouri, Kansas & Texas. 

1.01 

1.042 

1.054 

1.074 

.886 

1.142 

St. Louis & San Francisco. 

.955 

.979 

.963 

1.029 

.992 

.982 



AVERAGE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR EACH TON OF FREIGHT. 


Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe. 

$3.6809 

2.13008 

$3.70584 
2.08499 

S3.65666 

$3.60197 

S3.39030 
1.91755 

$3.05460 

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy...... 

2.08933 

2.04859 

1.91869 

Chicago & Alton. 

.97660 

. 90562 

.95696 

. 97159 

.91980 

.92790 

Chicago & North Western. 

1.37089 

1.33012 

1.25921 

1.33461 

1.25234 

1.21906 

Chicago Great Western. 

1.72762 

1.58352 

1.85174 

1.75597 

1.75681 

1.84577 

Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul. 

1.54361 

1.53972 

1.46289 

1.67116 

1.61107 

1.79086 

Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific. 

2.18636 

2.10602 

2.18966 

2.10989 

2.12013 

Missouri, Kansas & Texas. 

2.39033 

2. 29069 

2.28315 

2.05632 

1.86144 

2.35653 

Missouri Pacific. 

1.54583 

1.53136 

1.62042 

1.58492 

1.64720 

1.61692 

Quincy, Omaha & Kansas City. 

.84445 

.82249 

. 79549 

. 84187 

.94281 

.90678 

St. Louis & San Francisco. 

1.64888 

1.63720 

1.61192 

1.68797 

1.65986 

1.63281 

Wabash. 

1.39004 

1.36798 

1.39068 

1.42606 

1.41329 

1.39365 



Relation Between Effective Water Transportation and Low Rail Rates 

(Exhibits 37-46). 

Exhibit 37 .—Rates in cents per 100 pounds. 

(Current Oct. 19, 1915.) 


. From Kansas City, Mo., to— 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Chicago, Ill..*.. 

12 

C. R. I. & P. C-9650... 

11 

C. R. I. & P. C-9650. 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

12 

C. R. I. & P. C-9408... 

11 

C. R. I. & P. C-9408. 

Minneapolis, Minn. 

12 

C. R. I. & P. C-9650... 

11 

C. R. I. & P. C-9650. 

Duluth, Minn. 

17 

.do. 

16 

Do 

St. Louis, Mo. 

9 

.do. 

8 

Do 

Memphis^ Tenn. 

14 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700... 

13 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700. 

New Orleans, La. 

20 

.do. 

19 

Do 

Thebes Ill. . 

Cairo, Ill. 

} 10 

C. R. I. & P. C-9455... 

9 

C. R. I. & P. C-9455. 

(When for southeast.) 





Memphis, Tenn. 

14 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700... 

13 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700. 

(When for beyond.) 












































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 135 


Exhibit 37.— Rates in cents -per 100 pounds— Continued. 


From Kansas City, Mo., to— 

Oats, rye, barley. 

Flour. 

Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Chicago. Ill. 

11 

11 

11 

16 

C. R. I. & P. C-9650... 
C. R. I. & P. C-9!08... 
C. R. I. & P. C-9650... 
do 


C. R. I. & P. C-9650. 

C. R. I. & P. C-9408. 

C. R. I. & P. C-9650. 
Do. 

Do. 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700. 
Do. 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

\Z 

1 0 

Minneapolis, Minn. 

iZ 

Duluth, Minn. 

14 

19 

Q 

St. Louis, Mo. 

8 

rln 

Memphis, Tenn. 

13 

19 

) 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700... 
do 

1 A 

New Orleans, La. 

14 

20 

Thebes. Ill. 

C. R. I. & P. C-9455... 

Cairo, Ill. 

/ 9 

14 

C. R. I. & P. C-9455. 

(When for southeast.) 

Memphis, Tenn. 

13 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700... 

14 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700. 

(When for beyond.) 

From Kansas City, Mo., to— 

Meal, bran, chops. 

Castor beans. 

Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Chicago, Ill. 

11 

11 

11 

C. R. I. & P. C-9650... 
C. R. I. & P. C-9408... 
C. R. I. & P. C-9650... 
.do 

14 

14 

15| 

20f 

9 

C. R. I. & P. C-9650. 

C. R. I. & P. C-9408. 

C. R. I. & P. C-9650. 
Do. 

Do. 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700. 
Do. 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

Minneapolis, Minn. 

Duluth, Minn. 

16 

St. Louis, Mo. 

8 

do 

Memphis, Tenn. 

13 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700... 
.do 

19 

28 

16 

New "Orleans, La.;. 

19 

Thebes. Ill. 

C. R. I. & P. C-9455... 

Cairo, Ill. 

/ 9 

C. R. I. & P. C-9455. 

(When for southeast.) 

Memphis, Tenn. 

13 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700... 

19 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700. 

(When for beyond.) 

From Kansas City, Mo., to— 

Sorghum seed. 

Broom corn. 

Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Chicago, Ill... 

11 

C. R. I. & P. C-9650 

45 

45 

48 

W. T. L. A-602. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

Do. 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700. 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

11 

C. R. I. & P. C-940S... 
C. R. I. & P. C-9650 . 

Minneapolis, Minn. 

11 

Duluth, Minn. 

16 

.. .do. 

53 

St. Louis, Mo. 

8 

.. .do. 

35 

Memphis, Tenn. 

13 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700 . 

31 

New Orleans, La. 

19 

} 9 

.do. 

Thebes, Ill. 

C. R. I. & P. C-9455... 

31 

C. R. I. & P. C-9455. 

Cairo, Ill. 

(When for southeast.) 

Memphis, Tenn. 

13 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700... 

31 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700. 

(When for beyond.) 



Hay. 

Junk and scrap iron. 

From Kansas City, Mo., to— 





Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 


Chicago, Ill. 

19 * 

19* 

19* 

C. R. I. & P. C-9775... 

22 

W. T. L. A-602. 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

.do. 

22 

Do. 

Minneapolis, Minn. 

.do. 

23 

Do. 

Duluth, Minn. 


25 

Do. 

St. Louis, Mo. 

14* 

14* 

23* 

} 14* 

C. R. I. & P. C-9775... 

17 

Do. 

Memphis, Tenn. 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700... 

22 

Do. 

New Orleans, La.-. 

.do. 

Thebes, Ill. 

C. R. I. & P. C-9455... 

18 

Hall’s A-52. 

Cairo, Ill... 

(When for southeast.) 

Memphis Tenn. __ 

14* 

C. R. I. & P. C-9700... 

22 

Do. 

(When for beyond.) 



























































































































136 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


Exhibit 37 .—Rates in cents per 100 pounds —Continued. 



Lead, spelter, bullion. 


Acid. 

From Kansas City, Mo., to— 





Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Chicago, Ill. 

11 

W. T. L. A-602. 

15 

W. T. L. A-602. 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

11 

.do.. 

15 

Do. 

Minneapolis, Minn. 

11 

.do. 

16 

Do. 

Duluth, Minn. 

11 

.do. 

St. Louis, Mo. 

7\ 

.do. 

10 

Do. 

Memphis, Tenn. 

27 

.do. 

15 

Do. 

New "Orleans, La. 


18 

Hall’s A-47. 

Thebes. Ill.... 

Cairo, Ill. 

} 14 

Hall’s A-52. 

11 

Hall’s A-52. 


(When for southeast.) 

Memphis, Tenn. 

18 

.do. 

15 

Do. 

(When for beyond.) 



Potatoes. 


Apples. 


Prom Kansas City, Mo., to— 


Rate. 


Tariff I. C. C. No. 


Rate. 


Tariff I. C. C. No. 


Chicago, Ill. 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

Minneapolis, Minn. 

Duluth, Minn. 

St. Louis, Mo. 

Memphis, Tenn. 

New Orleans, La. 

Thebes, Ill. 

Cairo, Ill. 

(When for southeast.) 

Memphis, Tenn. 

(When for beyond.) 


22 

22 

23 

25 

17 

22 

34 

13 


17 


W. T. L. A-602. 

.do.. 

.do.. 

. . J ,. .do. 

.do.. 

.do.. 

Hall’s A-47. 

Hall’s A-52. 


.do. 


27 

W. T. L. A- 

27 

Do. 

28 

'Do. 

31 

Do. 

22 

Do. 

27 

Do. 

35 

Hall’s A-47. 

23 

Hall’s A-52. 

27 

Do. 


From Kansas City, Mo., to— 


Fuel oil. 


Naphtha. 

Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Rate. 

Tariff I. C. C. No. 

Chicago, Ill. 

22 

W. T. L. A-602. 

22 

W. T. L. A-602. 

Milwaukee, Wis. 

22 

_do. 

22 

Do. 

Minneapolis, Minn. 

28 

.do. 

28 

Do. 

Duluth, Minn. 

81 

. .do. 

31 

Do. 

Do. 

St. Louis, Mo. 

22 

.do. 

22 

Memphis, Tenn. 

27 

. _do„. 

27 

Do 

New "Orleans, La. 

35 

Hall’s A-47. 

35 

Hall’s A-47. 

Thebes, Ill.... 

Cairn Til 

} 21 

Hall’s A-52. 

21 

Hall’s A-52. 

(When for southeast.) 





Memphis, Tenn. 

25 

.do. 

25 

Do. 

(When for beyond.) 


















































































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 137 


Exhibit 38. 


[Authorities: Western Transit (canal, lake, and rail) I. C. C. 272, effective Aug. 19, 1911; New York Cen¬ 
tral & Hudson River tariff A-25000, I. C. C. B-18971, effective Aug. 1, 1913; Pa. G. O. I. C. C. No. 3870, 
effective June 1,1912; Western Trunk Lines 5-F, I. C. C. A-422 and 1-1,1. C. C. A-602.] 


Commodity. 


Coffee. 

Canned goods. 

Earthenware in boxes, 
barrels, tierces. 

Bar iron.. 

Building paper.. 

Sugar.. 

Electrical equipment.. 

Paint. 

Plumbers' goods.... 

Hardware.. 

Drugs. 


New York City to Chicago. 


Canal and lake. 

Lake and rail. 

Minimum 

weight 

1,000 

pounds. 

Tariff reference. 

Rate. 

Minimum 

weight 

1,000 

pounds. 

Tariff reference. 

Rate. 

30 

W.Tr. I.C.C.272. 

19 

30 

Pa. R. R. I. C. C. 3415. 

23 

36 

.do. 

19 

36 

Pa. R. R. I. C. C. 3870. 

25 

24 (R. 27) 

.do. 

17 

24 

.do. 

25 

36 

.do. 

16 

36 

.do. 

25 

30 

.do. 

14i 

30 

Pa. R. R. I. C. C. 4255. 

171 

33 

.do. 

19 

33 

Pa. R. R. I. C. C. 3415. 

23 

30 

.do. 

19 

30 

Pa. G. O. I. C. C. 3870. 

41 

36 

.. .do. 

19 

36 

.do. 

25 

30 

. .do. 

22 

30 

.do. 

25 

30 

.. .do. 

22 

30 

.do. 

30 

24 

.. .do. 

29 

24 

.do. 

41 









New York City to Chicago (all rail, 912 miles). 

Chicago to Kansas City (451 miles). 

Commodity. 

Minimum 

weight 

1,000 

pounds. 

Tariff reference. 

Rate. 

Tariff. 

Item. 

Minimum 

weight 

1,000 

pounds. 

Rate. 

Cnff pa _ 

30 

Pa. R. R. I. C. C. 5969. 

30 

W. T. L. 

Class. 

30 

27 

Planned goods 

36 

Pa. R. R. I. C. C. 3899. 

30 

1-H., I. 
C.C. A- 
364. 

.. .do_ 

Class. 

36 

27 

Earthenware in box- 

24 

.do. 

30 

.. .do_ 

Class. 

24 

27 

es. barrels, tierces. 

Rar iron 

36 

.do. 

30 

.. .do_ 

685 

36 

27 

Tpl'lding paper 

30 

Pa. R. R. I. C. C. 3698. 

20 

.. .do_ 

840 

40 

16 

Sugar...". 

33 

Pa. R. R. I. C. C. 5969_ 

26 

...do_ 

Class. 

36 

27 

Electrical equipment. 

Paint 

30 

N. Y. C. A 11. R I. C. C. 

B-18971 .,. 

.do. 

52i 

34 

34 

36.8 

.. .do_ 

.. .do_ 

Class. 

Class. 

(>) 

36 

80 

27 

goods 

30 

.do. 

.. .do_ 

Class. 

24 

45 

PT&rd war a 

30 

.do. 

.. .do_ 

Class. 

0 ) 

65 

Tirugs 

24 

.do... 

52| 

...do_ 

570 

30 

55 








Any quantity. 












































































































138 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Exhibit 39. —Rates on class traffic. 


[Authorities: Interstate Commerce Commission’s “Railways in the United States in 1902,” 
Western Trunk Lines 1-1., I. C. C. A-602; 5-F., I. C. C. A-422; N. Y. C. H. R. A-2500 , I. C 
Pa. R. R. G. O. I. C. C. 3870; Western Transit Co. I. C. C. 272.] 


and tariffs, 
. C. B-18971; 


[In cents per 100 pounds.] 



Chicago to— 

New York to Chicago. 

Classes. 

Minneapolis 
(420 miles). 

Kansas City 
(451 miles). 

All rail (812 
miles). 

Rail and lake. 

Canal and lake. 


1890 

1915 

1890 

1915 

1888 

1915 

1901 

1913 

1901 

1913 

Less than carload: 

1. 

60 

60 

60 

80 

75 

78.8 

59 

62 

40 

42 

2. 

50 

50 

50 

65 

65 

68.3 

51 

54 

34 

38 

3. 

40 

40 

35 

45 

50 

52.5 

40 

41 

28 

29 

4. 

25 

25 

25 

32 

35 

36.8 

29 

30 

22 

22 

Carload: 

5. 

18 

20 

18 

27 

30 

31.5 

25 

25 

20 

19 

A. 

25 

25 

25 

32 

25 

26.3 

21.5 

21 

17.5 

17 

B. 

18 

20 

20 

27 

0 ) 

0) 

0) 

0) 

0) 

0) 

c 

15 

17 

15 

22 

D 

13 

14 

14 

18. 5 







E 

12 

13 

13 

16 















1 Sixth class. 


Exhibit 40. 


[C., R. I. & P. 28470-C, I. C. C. C-9505; C., R. I. & P. 22000-C, I. C. C. C-9446; C., R. I. & P. 29329-A, 
I. C. C. C-9650; B. & 0. I. C. C. 1157, Pa. Co. I. C. C. F-626; A., T. & S. F. 5588-J, I. C. C. 6240; C., R. I. 
& P. 28675-B, I. C. C. C-9691; C., B. & Q. 1800-B, I. C. C. 932(1; U. P. 13475, I. C. C. 2548.] 

[In cents per 100 pounds.] 



Minneapolis 
to Chicago 
(420 miles.) 

I^msas City 
to Chicago 
(451 miles). 

Chicago to New York. 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

All rail 
(912 
miles). 

Lake 

and 

rail. 

Lake 

and 

canal. 

All rail 
(912 
miles). 

Lake 

and 

rail. 

Lake 

and 

canal. 

Proportional on traf¬ 
fic from beyond... 

10 

7.5 

12 

11 

18.8 

14.7 

8.85 

18.8 

14.7 

9.4 


To Chicago from— 

Miles. 

Wheat. 

To Chicago from— 

Miles. 

Wheat. 

Newton, Kans. 

644 

24i 
241 
251 
251 

Smith Center, Kans. 

717 

25 

Wichita, Kans. 

671 

Grand Island, Nebr. 

637 

25.6 

Pratt, Kans. 

745 

Lexington, Nebr. 

714 

26. 87 

Kiowa, Kans. 

766 

Ogallaia, Nebr. 

825 

27.3 

Dodge City, Kans. 

797 

26§ 

Hastings, Nebr. 

642 

25.6 

Great Bend, Kans. 

725 

25i 

26i 

20 

Holdredge, Nebr. 

696 

25.6 

Scott City, Kans. 

845 

McCook, Nebr. 

773 

27.3 

McFarland, Kans. 

615 

Benkelman, Nebr. 

825 

27.3 

27.3 

Clay Center, Kans. 

673 

22 

Imperial, Nebr. 

833 

Belleville, Kans. 

652 

24 






















































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 139 


Exhibit 41. —Lake and rail freights, season of 1914- 


The following shows the current weekly freights on flour, wheat, and corn by lake, 
Chicago to Buffalo: 

[Authority: 1914 annual report, Chicago Board of Trade. ] 


Week ending— 

Flour. 1 

Wheat. 2 

Corn. 2 


Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Apr. 25. 

16.4 

H 

H 

May 2. 

16.4 

H 

li 

9. 

16.4 

l 

l 

16. 

16.4 

l 

l 

23. 

16.4 

1 

3 

30. 

16.4 

l 

l 

June 6. 

16.4 

3 

3 

13. 

16.4 

l 

l 

20. 

16.4 

3 

3 

27. 

16.4 

| 


July 4. 

16.4 

3 

3 

11. 

16.4 

3 

3 

18. 

16.4 

3 

3 

25. 

16.4 

3 

3 

Aug. 1. 

16.4 

l 

l 

8 . 

16.4 

3 

3 


Oats. 2 


Cents. 

1 

1 


Week ending— 

Flour. 1 

Wheat. 2 

Corn. 2 

Oats. 2 


Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Cents. 

Aug. 15. 

16.4 

3 

3 


22. 

16.4 

3 

7 

S 


29. 

16.4 


3 

| 

Sept. 5. 

16.4 

| 

3 

| 

12. 

16.4 

l 

l 

| 

19. 

16.4 

l 

l 

| 

26. 

16.4 

4 

4 


Oct. 3. 

16.4 

13 

4 

l 

10. 

16.4 

l 

l 

I 

17. 

16.4 

l 

l 

| 

24. 

16.4 

l 

l 


31. 

16.4 

l 

l 


Nov. 7. 

16.4 

U 

4 

1 

14. 

16.4 

4 

4 

4 

21. 

16.4 

4 

4 

4 

28. 

16.4 

li 

if 

4 


1 Per barrel. 2 Per bushel. 

Exhibit 42.— Movement of flour and grain from Chicago during 1914, via Lakes, eastern 

and southeastern railroads. 

[Authority: 1914 annual report, Chicago Board of Trade.] 


Route. 

Flour. 

Wheat. 

Corn. 

Oats. 

Rye. 

Barley. 

Lake. 

Barrels. 

3,097,000 
4,064,000 

Bushels. 
56,456,000 
27,122,000 

Bushels. 
21,891,000 
40,686,000 

Bushels. 
11,119,000 
109., 254,000 

Bushels. 

75,000 
2,047,000 

Bushels. 
250,000 
6,184,000 

Eastern and southeastern lines 

Total. 

7,161,000 

83,578,000 

62,577,000 

120,373,000 

2,122,000 

6,434,000 



Exhibit 43 .—Grain received at New York. 
[Authority: Statistical Abstract of United States, p. 295.] 


Route. 

1912 

1913 

Bv canal via river. 

Bushels. 
3,530,600 
126,640,580 

Bushels. 

4,371,700 
135,672, 495 

Otherwise. 

Total . 

130,171,180 

140,044,195 



Received via canal, 3 per cent. 

Exhibit 44 .—Statement of freight moving through Panama Canal from Atlantic and 
Gulf ports to ports in California, Oregon, and Washington, from Sept. 27, 1914, to 
Sept. 5, 1915, inclusive, as shown in the Canal Record 

[Submitted by rail carriers in recent hearing before Interstate Commerce Commission, fourth section 

application No. 10172.] 


Period. 

General 

cargo. 

Coal. 

Period. 

General 

cargo. 

Coal. 

Sept. 27-29, 1914. 

Oct. 1-28, 1914. 

Nov. 1-30, 1914. 

Dec. 2-31, 1914. 

Tan 1 31 1915 

Tons. 
14,800 
59,746 
69,547 
52,027 
79,744 
57,328 
89, 769 
105,045 

Tons. 
8,340 
10,252 
3,995 
1,700 
8,566 
1,828 
12,052 
1,821 

May 2-31, 1915. 

June 5-30, 1915. 

July 1-31, 1915. 

Aug. 4-29, 1915. 

Sept. 1-5, 1915. 

Tons. 

98,263 

64,349 

60,958 

45,996 

24,945 

822,517 

Tons. 

12,865 

13,385 

.8,933 

9,803 

Feb. l-26 rf 1915. 

Mar. 1-31, 1915. 

Apr. 2-30, 1915. 

Total. 

93,540 


Chicago September 23, 1915. 















































































































140 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


Exhibit 45 .—Representative reductions in rates from territory New York to Colorado 
State line to California Pacific coast terminals by rail lines in competition with water 
lines via Panama Canal, effective July 15, 1915 (Transcontinental Freight Bureau 
Westbound Tariff No. 1-N, I. C. C. No. 996, Sup. No. 16.) Substantially corre¬ 
sponding reductions were made by the rail lines to north coast terminals. 

[Cents per hundredweight.] 


Item 

No. 


Commodity. 


Carload rates. 


Old. 


New. 


Reduc¬ 

tion. 


Less than carload rates. 


Old. 


New. 


Reduc¬ 

tion. 


1081.... 
282 
1088-B. 

1104-A. 

1115.. .. 
1118-A. 

1118.. .. 

392. 

1120.... 

1119.. .. 
1128-A. 
1130-A 

1136.. .. 

1138.. .. 
1138-1.. 
1138-2.. 

1139.. .. 

544. 

1142.. .. 

1140.. .. 
1148-A. 
1148-A. 

1152.. .. 

1154.. .. 

1158.. .. 

1160.. .. 
1160-1.. 
1161.... 
1161-1.. 
1162-A. 
1168-A. 
1168-1.. 
1168-A. 
1168-2.. 

1169.. .. 

1170.. .. 

1172.. .. 

1178.. .. 

1182.. .. 
1184-A. 

1184.. .. 

1185.. .. 

1186.. .. 
1186-1.. 
1186-2.. 
1186.... 

1187.. .. 
1188-A. 

1188.. .. 
1188-1.. 
1212-A. 
1214-A. 
1216-B. 
1217.... 
1218-B. 
1218-1.. 
1220-A. 


jcalcium, carbide of. 

Canned fish, fruits, meats, vege¬ 
tables, etc. 

Cocoa beans. 

Brattice cloth. 


Dry goods, cotton. 


I 

jciayed cotton bagging. 


Electrical goods. 
do. 


Hardware. 


| Lawn mowers. 

jninges, spring. 

Pulleys. 

Sandpaper. 

Screws (iron or steel). 


Tools. 


Files, rasps. 
•Hose. 


| Packing. 

Ink. 

Iron and steel articles.... 

Bar iron. 

Bolts, nuts. 

Butts, hinges, hasps, etc. 

^Hooks, staples, links.... 


Castings, n. o. s. 


1222-A. 
1224-A. 


1228-A. 
1228-1.. 
1234-A. 


•Ingot molds.. 
Chain, n. o. s. 


Pipe bands. 
Sheet iron.. 


125 

90-95 

85 


110 


90 

85 


jsheet iron, 12G or lighter. 

Shingle bands, box strips, baling 

ties. 

Shoes—horse, mule. 

Shoes, heads, rings, tires or dies, 
cams and tappets for quartz 
mills. 

jsucker rods... 

Tumbuckles. 


125 


80 

80 

80 

85 


80 


85 


80 

80-85 

95 

80 

85 

90 

80 


85 

75 

75 


90 


80 

75 


95 


75 

75 

75 

75 


75 


75 


75 

75 

75 

75 

75 

75 

75 


40 

15-20 

10 


20 


10 

10 


30 


5 

5 

5 

10 


10 


5 

5-10 

20 

5 

10 

15 

5 


175 

150 

25 

160 

135 

25 

145 

135 

10 




175-190 

150 

25-40 

160 

150 

10 

160 

150 

10 

160 

150 

10 

130 

125 

5 

175-190 

150 

25-40 

185 

150 

35 

175 

150 

25 

175 

150 

25 

150 

125 

25 

130 

125 

5 

130 

125 

5 

130 

125 

5 

160 

125 

35 

160 

150 

10 

135 

125 

10 

130 

125 

5 

130 

125 

5 

130 

125 

6 







130 

125 

5 

175 

150 

25 













































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 141 

Exhibit 45 .—Representative reductions in rates from territory New York to Colorado 
State line to California Pacific coast terminals by rail lines in competition with water 
lines via Panama Canal, effective July 15, 1915 (Transcontinental Freight Bureau 
Westbound Tariff No. 1-N, I. C. C. No. 996, Sup. No. 16.) Substantially corre¬ 
sponding reductions were made by the rail lines to north coast terminals —Continued. 


Item 

No. 


Commodity. 


Carload rates. 


Old. 


New. 


Reduc¬ 

tion. 


Less than carload rates. 


Old. 

New. 

R educ¬ 
tion. 

175 

150 

25 




130 

125 

5 

175 

150 

25 
















170 

150 

20 










175 

150 

25 




160 

175 

175 

175 

150 

150 

125 

125 

10 

25 

50 

50 














| 



1242-A. 
1242-1.. 
646. 

1243.. .. 

726. 

1253.. .. 
1254-A. 
1254-1.. 

1256.. .. 
1254-A. 

1258.. .. 

1257.. .. 

748. 

1258-1.. 

to 

1258-5.. 
750. 

1259.. .. 
1262-A. 

1272-A. 
768. 

1275.. .. 

804. 

1277.. .. 

1306.. .. 

1308.. .. 

1308-1.. 
912_ 

1313.. . 

928_ 

1313- 1. 

930_ 

1312-2. 

1314- A 
1316-A 
1316-1. 
1326-A 

1328.. . 
1198-A 
1330-A 
1332-A 
1332-1. 

1332.. . 
1332-2. 

1332.. . 
1332-3. 

1052.. . 

1333.. . 

1336- A 

1056.. . 

1337.. . 

1058.. . 

1337- 1. 

1338- A 


jlJquors, n. o. s. 

Wine. 

\Oilcloth, linoleum, wood grain 
J flooring. 

Paints. 


►White or red lead. 


Paper and articles of paper. 


|Bag and barrel linings. 

Paper, book-cover, colored or 

glazed . 

Wrapping paper. 

Writing (flat) paper.. 

\ Potassium and sodium, cyanide 

of. 

Soda, bicarbonate. 

j-Spices. 

jstarch. 

1 Radiators (without gas heating 
I attachment). 

^Sectional boilers. 

Stovepipe, iron. 

Tacks.. 

Twine and cordage. 

|Wire—plain, barbed. 

Wire cloth. 

jwire fencing. 

jStaples, steel stay guards. 

jwire stretchers. 

-.Wire, insulated. 

/Wire rods. 

jwire rope cable. 

Wire telephone cable. 

Zinc spelter. 


125 

110 

95 

85 

120 

100 

90 

90 

100 

120 

84 


100 

100 

120 

95 

95 

95 

85 


90 


110 

80 

110 

110 

80 


90 

75 

75 

75 

90 

80 

80 

80 

90 

85 

75 


85 

75 

75 

75 

75 

75 

75 


75 


75 

75 

75 

75 

75 


35 

35 

20 

10 

30 

20 

10 

10 

10 

35 

9 


15 

25 

45 

20 

20 

20 

10 


15 


35 

5 

35 

35 

5 



















































































142 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


Exhibit 46 .—Additional representative reductions in transcontinental freight rates 
proposed by rail carriers in competition with Panama Canal routes in fourth section 
application No. 10172, before Interstate Commerce Commission (now pending )—• 
Rates and amount of reductions are averaged from originating territory, Atlantic sea¬ 
board to Colorado, inclusive, to Pacific coast terminals. 

[Cents per hundredweight.] 


Item No., 
Supple¬ 
mentary- 
Schedule 
C list. 

Commodity. 

Carload rate. 

Less than carload. 

Average 
rate at 
present. 

Pro¬ 

posed. 

Reduc¬ 

tion. 

Average 
rate at 
present. 

Pro¬ 

posed. 

Reduc¬ 

tion. 

5 

Parts for agricultural imple- 








ments. 




276 

150 

126 

10 

.do. 




231 

150 

81 

15 

.do. 




194 

150 

44 

20 

Ammonia, sulphate, Chicago 







and West. 

60 

50 

10 




25 

Ammunition and gun imple- 








ments. 




276 

150 

126 

30 

Bullets, shot. 




231 

150 

81 

35 

Argol.... 

194 

75 

119 



40 

Bags, cotton. 

125 

90 

35 




45 

Bats, baseball. 




231 

175 

56 

50 

Beehives and honey, section 







frames. 

100 

90 

10 

231 

150 

81 

55 

Beverages, flavored or phos- 








phated mineral water. 




231 

150 

81 

60 

Beverages, in bulk in barrels.. 




194 

150 

44 

65 

Bluing, laundry. 




276 

150 

126 

70 

Bluing, laundry, in bulk in 






barrels. 




231 

150 

81 

75 

Brass, bronze or copper goods, 






not silver plated: 








Pipe or tubing. 

115 

85 

30 





Pipe or tubing covered or 








lined with iron or steel.. 

100 

85 

15 





Blanks. 

150 

85 

65 

276 

125 

151 


Plate or sheet, strip, bar 








or rod. 

150 

85 

65 




80 

Bars, rough cast cakes, ingots, 








pigs or slabs. 

150 

85 

65 

231 

125 

106 

85 

Cocks, valves, pipe fittings, 








brass or bronze. 




276 

150 

126 

90 

Cable, electric, telephone and 






power iron wire. 




231 

150 

SI 

95 

Cable, insulated. 




276 

150 

126 

100 

Candles. 

100 

75 

25 



Paraffin, wax. 

90 

75 

15 




105 

Canned goods, or. 




194 

160 

Q4 

110 

Preserves, pickles, and. 




231 

160 

71 

115 

Table sauces, as...”. 




276 

160 

116 

1 £0 

120 

Shown.. 




319 

160 



276 

75 

201 




150 

75 

75 




125 


110 

75 

35 





100 

75 

25 






90 

75 

15 






75 

75 





135 

Cement, liquid. 

319 

80 

239 





Cement paste. 

276 

80 

196 




140 

.do. 




276 

1 7^ 

1 A1 

145 

Ceramic slabs. 




125 

SO 

JLUl 

150 

Barley malt, Chicago and West 




75 

65 

10 

165 

Buckwheat flour, Chicago and 





West. 




90 




And various, as shown. 




85 

75 

10 

in 

175 

Coconut, concentrated or desic- 






cated. 

276 

150 

126 




180 

Co 'ee, co 'ee substitutes. 

231 

160 

71 




185 

Co 'ee, co ee substitutes, in 








boxes or double bags. 

194 

160 

34 




190 

Chicory in bags, and co ee 








substitutes. 

110 

90 

20 




195 

Compounds, polishing and 








buffing, n. o. s. 




231 

150 

si 

200 

Polish, furniture; polish, metal. 




276 

150 

OJL 

126 

205 

Conduits. 

103 

85 

is 






















































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 143 


Exhibit 46. —Additional representative reductions in transcontinental freight rates 
proposed by rail carriers in competition with Panama Canal routes in fourth section 
application No. 10172, before Interstate Commerce Commission (now pending )— 
Rates and amount of reductions are averaged from originating territory, Atlantic sea¬ 
board to Colorado, inclusive, to Pacific coast terminals —Continued. 


Item No., 


Carload rate. 

Less than carload. 








supple- 

Commodity. 

Average 
rate at 
present. 

Pro- 

Reduc- 

Average 
rate at 
present. 

Pro- 

Reduc- 

mentary 

Schedule 

Clist. 


posed. 

tion. 

posed. 

tion. 

215 

Cotton-mill sweepings, etc., as 








shown. 




231 

150 

81 

220 

Depilatory compound, Chica- 





go and West. 

194 

55 





225 

230 

Dressing or blacking. 


276 

160 

116 

Dressing, harness, etc., in bulk 





in barrels. 




231 

160 

71 

235 

Dry goods, as shown (other 





than C. P. G.). 

319 

90 

229 

319 

135 

184 

240 

Earthenware and stoneware.. 




115 

95 

20 

245 

Earthenware and chinaware, 






fvs shown 

115 

95 

20 




250 

255 

Cable hangers. 

231 

150 

81 

Carbon brushes, carbon elec- 








trodes, carbons, arc lamp or 
battery._. 




276 

175 

101 

260 

Carbon electrodes, 4 inches or 




175 

144 


over in diameter ._ 




319 

265 

275 


125 

80 

45 



Cable clamps, clevis yokes, 





straps, arcing rods, hooks. 

166 

80 

86 




280 

285 

290 

Tnsnlatnrs etc as shown 

276 

150 

126 

Insulators as shown 




231 

150 

81 

Expansion bolts, steel pins, 

166 

75 

91 









295 
• 300 

305 


166 

80 

86 




Fiber sheets 

276 

150 

126 

Foods (animal), dog biscuits.. 

110 

85 

25 




276 

135 

141 

310 

315 

Foundry facings (graphite) 




Foundry facings mat etc 




194 

135 

59 


/ 125 

\ 110 

90 

90 

35 

20 




320 

Furniture, as shown. 




325 

330 

335 

340 

342 

Gamp furniture 

276 

175 

101 

Cctnv^rS <x>ts 




231 

175 

56 

Common gla^S as shewn 




194 

175 

19 

Window glasa as shewn 




276 

175 

101 


125 

90 

35 





276 

160 

116 

350 

do 




231 

160 

71 

Lights fleer vault orsidewalk 




194 

175 

19 






319 

175 

144 

365 

Grape juice (unfermented). 

110 

90 

20 







370 

Graphite articles—crucibles, 




276 

150 

126 

375 

Gums, copal, damar, shellac, 




276 

150 

126 

qca 





194 

150 

44 

oou 





276 

150 

126 

OoO 

390 

385 

400 

410 

415 




. 

194 

150 

44 




. 

276 

150 

126 

do 




231 

150 

81 

rln 

166 

85 

81 




Barn or warehouse door hang- 

231 

150 

81 

420 

Door hangers, rail or track, 
other than barn or warehouse. 




276 

150 

126 

A 




319 

150 

169 

430 

Frames, bucksaw, knocked 




276 

150 

126 

435 

1 iber, flax tow' and flax straw.. 

110 

75 

35 







440 

Insecticides or fungicides, liq¬ 
uid ..- 

150 

85 

65 

231 

190 

41 

445 

Insecticides or fungicides, other 

than linnid ..... 

150 

85 

65 

276 

190 

86 






231 

150 

81 

45U 





194 

150 

44 

4 5o 





194 

130 

64 

460 





276 

130 

146 

4b£ 

470 





231 

150 

81 




























































































144 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


Exhibit 46. —Additional representative reductions in transcontinental freight rates 
proposed big rail carriers in competition with Panama Canal routes in fourth section 
application No. 10172 , before Interstate Commerce .Commission (now pending )—• 
Rates and amount of reductions are averaged from originating territory, Atlantic sea¬ 
board to Colorado, inclusive, to Pacific coast terminals —Continued. 


Item No., 
Supple¬ 
mentary- 
Schedule 
C list. 

Commodity. 

Carload rate. 

Less than carload. 

Average 
rate at 
present. 

Pro¬ 

posed. 

Reduc¬ 

tion. 

Average 
rate at 
present. 

Pro¬ 

posed. 

Reduc¬ 

tion. 

475 

Castings (chain), malleable, 








rough, Chicago and West_ 

75 

55 

20 




480 

Castings, finished, agricultural 








implement, carriage, wagon, 








sleigh, hose, stepladder. 




194 

150 

44 

485 

Castings, furniture and car 








seat, etc. 




276 

150 

126 

500 

Iron ceilings. 




194 

150 

44 

505 

Chains, auto tire. 




276 

175 

101 

510 

Dredger bucket bases. 

150 

80 

70 




515 

Joint hangers, post caps, bases.. 




194 

125 

69 

520 

Iron and steel lathing, ex- 








panded metal flooring, etc.... 

90 

75 

15 




525 

Steel fence posts.71. 

100 

75 

25 





From group “ J”. 

100 

60 

40 




535 

Spiegeleisen, Chicago and West, 








except. 

166 

45 

121 





From group “J” . 

166 

36 

130 




540 

Pipe fittings, etc., as shown, 








Chicago and West. 

70 

60 

10 

194 

150 

44 


Water gates. 

100 

60 

40 

194 

150 

44 

545 

I ire hydrants. 

100 

60 

40 

231 

150 

81 

550 

Iron or steel, cold rolled. 




194 

125 

69 


From group “3 ” . 




160 

100 

60 

555 

Coping, eave troughs, flash- 






ing, etc. 




276 

125 

151 


From group “J” . 




160 

100 

60 

565 

Shutters and doors, steel plate.. 




194 

150 

44 

570 

Tubing, iron. 

100 

80 

20 


575 

Jacks, screws, railroad track 








jacks and ratchet jacks. 




231 

150 

81 

580 

Lime phosphate. 

110 

90 

20 


590 

Fets and netting, fish. 




319 

150 

169 

595 

Oilcloth and linoleum, cork 





carpet. 




276 

125 

151 

10A 

600 

Wood carpet. 




231 

125 

605 

Paint stains. 

166 

75 

91 


610 

.do. 




194 

125 

AQ 

615 

Paper laundry wrappers, tow- 






els and toweling, cups folded 








flat, filtermasse. 




276 

150 

19A 

620 

F iiter paper. 




231 

150 

81 

625 

Filter paper, filtermasse. 

231 

90 

141 



Laundry wrappers, cups, folded 








flat. 

194 

90 

104 





Photographic mounts. 

319 

90 

229 




630 

Paper boxes, egg cases, fillers, 








etc. 




276 


QA 

635 

Paper boxes, etc., folded flat.. 




231 

180 

yo 

51 

640 

Building roofing felt, tar board, 





etc. 




231 

i ^n 

81 

645 

Wood-pulp board, corrugated 





ol 


or indented. 




276 

i ^n 

19A 

650 

Wall paper or wall-paper sam- 





JLZO 


pie books. 




276 


ini 

655 

Toilet paper paper towels. 






AUA 


Chicago and West. 

90 

80 

10 




665 

Pumps and fixtures, hand or 








windmill, taking second class. 




276 

160 

11A 

670 

Same, taking third class... 




231 

160 
l ah 

71 

675 

Pump parts, second class. 




276 

11 A 

680 

Pump parts, third class. 




231 

1 AO 

AID 

71 

685 

Pump parts, fourth class. 




194 

1 AO 

# A 

Q/4 

690 

Railway supplies, as shown.... 




194 

150 

o'i 
AA 

695 

Brake shoes. 

70 

55 

15 


700 

Group “J”, Chicago and West. 

55 

40 

15 



* • 

Asbestos, as shown, roofing felt. 

100 

80 

20 

























































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 145 


Exhibit 46. —Additional representative reductions in transcontinental freight rates 
proposed hi/ rail carriers in competition with Panama Canal routes in fourth section 
application No. 101 id, before Interstate Commerce Commission (now pending )— 
Rates and amount of reductions are averaged from originating territory, Atlantic sea- 
hoard to Colorado, inclusive, to Pacific coast terminals —Continued. 


Item No., 
supple¬ 
mentary 
Schedule 
C list. 


Carload rate. 

Less than carload. 

Commodity. 

Average 
rate at 
present. 

Pro¬ 

posed. 

Reduc¬ 

tion. 

Average 
rate at 
present. 

Pro¬ 

posed. 

Reduc¬ 

tion. 

705 

Rubber (crude); rubber (shod¬ 
dy). 




319 

175 

144 

710 

Rubber filler. 


. 


231 

175 

56 

715 

Sait. 

60 

45 

15 

Chicago and Wed 

50 

45 

5 




720 

Sea 1 es. 


276 

170 

106 

730 

735 

740 

745 

750 

Soap etc. _ 

. 

80 

60 

20 

Sod'aash, group “D” and West. 
Sodium, aluminum, sulphate . 
Stove boards_. 

55 

45 

10 




120 

75 

45 




166 

90 

76 




Tile, as shown. 

194 

125 

69 

755 

Tiling floor (cork, rubber, or 
composition). 




276 

150 

12G 

760 

765 

Tires,rubber (not pneumatic).. 




276 

175 

101 

Trunk covering. 

191 

95 

99 

231 

150 

81 

. 770 

Twine and cordage, taking 
third class 

231 

150 

81 

775 

780 

785 

Rope twine, taking second class 
A vies iron steel . 




276 

150 

126 




231 

150 

81 

SKeins and axle boxes, axle 
nuts. 




194 

150 

44 

790 

795 

800 

805 

810 

S15 

825 

Vehicle parts, self-propelling... 




231 

175 

56 

Wax . 




231 

175 

56 

! Wax shoe or harness masers’_. 




276 

175 

101 


100 

75 

25 



Post, iron or steel.•_ 

194 

125 

69 


194 

75 

119 




Wire cloth and netting, iron, 
St68l 

120 

75 

45 




830 

Wringers other than power ... 

276 

150 

126 








H. Doe. 403, 04-1-10 































































146 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

Tonnage Lake Lines, 1914, and Comparison with Completed Missouri River 
in Estimated Relative Capacity for Earnings Upon and Cost of Handling 
Traffic per Dollar Invested (Exhibits 47-48). 

Exhibit 47.— Interstate Commerce Commission I. & S. Docket 615—Composite of 
Fell's Exhibits Nos. 3 and 5—Classification of tonnage for year ended Dec. 31, 1914. 

[Lake lines, viz: Erie R. R. Lake Line, Erie & West. Trans. Co., Lehigh Yal. Trans. Co., Mutual Transit 

Co., Rutland Transit Co., W estern Transit Co.] 


Tonnage. 


Commodity. 

Total. 

Per cent. 

Eastbound. 

Westbound. 


* 







Total. 

Per cent. 

Total. 

Per cent. 

Products of agriculture: 







Grain. 

309,459 

9.49 

309,159 

13.87 

300 

0.03 

Flour . 



1,075,536 

48. 24 

206 

.02 

Other mill products. 

1,557,539 

47.77 

480,640 

21.56 

1,157 

.11 

TTav . 

7,234 

.22 

7,234 

.32 



Tnbanan .-. 

1,965 

.06 

85 


1,880 

.18 

ftnt.t.nn . 

8,774 

.27 

8,749 

.39 

25 


Fruits and vegetables. 

89,686 

2.75 

8,033 

.36 

81,653 

7.92 

Other products of agriculture. 

63,592 

1.95 

49,356 

2.21 

14,236 

1.38 

Total. 

2,038,249 

62. 51 

1,938,792 

86.95 

99,457 

9.64 

Products of animals: 







Packing-house products. 

1,340 

.04 

826 

.04 

514 

.05 

Poultry, game, and fish. 

6,035 

.18 

2,0o8 

.03 

3, 977 

.38 

Wool. 

9,527 

.29 

9,159 

.41 

368 

.04 

Hides and leather. 

3,719 

.12 

171 

.01 

3,548 

.34 

Other products of animals... 

11,803 

.36 

2,236 

.10 

9,567 

.93 

Total. 

32,424 

.99 

14,450 

. 65 

17,974 

1.74 

Products of mines: 







A ntbiraajte coal 

58,920 

1.81 



58,920 

5.72 

Ores. 

'438 

.02 

211 

.01 

227 

.02 

Stone, sand, and other like articles.. 

12,007 

.36 

88 


11,919 

1.16 

Other products of mines. 

110,486 

3.39 

93,958 

4. 22 

16,528 

1.60 

Total. 

181,851 

5.58 

94,257 

4.23 

87,594 

8.50 

Products of forests: 







Lumber. 

51,844 

1.59 

51,202 

2.30 

642 

.06 

Other products of forests. 

39,958 

1.23 

38,897 

1.74 

1,151 

.11 

Total. 

91,802 

2.82 

90,003 

4.04 

1,793 

.17 

Manufactures: 







Petroleum and other oils. 

9,227 

.28 

470 

.02 

8,757 

.85 

Sugar. 

198,677 

6.09 

17,342 

.78 

181,335 

17.59 

Naval stores . 

1,065 

.03 

1 


1,054 

.10 

Tron pip' and bloom. 





3'803 

.37 

Tron and steel rails 



190 

.01 

10, 781 

1.05 

Other castings and machinery. 

84,010 

2.58 

369 

.02 

68,867 

6.68 

Bar and sheet metal. 

48,476 

1.49 

907 

.04 

47, 569 

4.61 

Cement, brick, and lime. 

24,444 

.75 

35 


24,403 

2.37 

Agricultural implements. 

11,785 

.36 

6,127 

.27 

5,658 

.55 

Wagons, carriages, tools, etc. 

3,108 

.10 

315 

.01 

2,793 

.27 

Wines, liquors, and beers. 

6,517 

.20 

3,336 

.15 

3,181 

.31 

Household goods and furniture. 

16,938 

.52 

271 

.01 

16,667 

1.62 

Other manufactures. 

353,301 

10.83 

35,366 

1.59 

317,935 

30.83 

Total. 

757,548 

23.23 

64,729 

2.90 

692,819 

67.20 

Miscellaneous commodities not specified. 

99,811 

3.06 

21,750 

.98 

78,051 

7.57 

Merchandise. 

59,016 

1.81 

5,659 

.25 

53,357 

5.18 

Total revenue freight. 

3,260,701 

100.00 

2,223,646 

109.00 

1,031,055 

100.00 


Eastbound, 68.38 per cent; westbound, 31.62 per cent. 

Classification made in accordance with the “Classification of freight commodities of the Association of 
American Railway Accounting Officers," issued in 1911. 

Note.— Witness F. J. Fell is chief statistician of the Pennsylvania R. R. lines east of Pittsburgh and 
In this case testified as chairman of the accounting committee of the lake lines. (Tr., p. 14.) 











































































































MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 147 


Exhibit 48 .—Comparison of Missouri River with Great Lakes transportation. 

[Basis: An investment of $1,090,000 in towboats and barges designed for and operated upon a permanent 
6-foot channel of the Missouri River—Kansas City to St. Louis—compared with 6 package freight lake 
lines reporting to the Interstate Commerce Commission for the 1914 season. I. & S. Docket 615.) 



Horse¬ 

power 

(each). 

Towing 
capacity 
(tons per 
trip). 

Trips per 
season. 

Season 

capacity 

(tons). 

Invest¬ 

ment. 

Great Lakes fleets 1 . 


1 



Missouri River fleet: 

Towboats. 

1,500 

2,000 

2,000 

64 

128,000 

$136,000 
680,000 

320,000 

5 units. 

320 

610,000 

Merchandise barges: 16 units of 1,000 tons carry¬ 
ing capacity each, at $20,000... 








>50 boats having a combined cargo-carrying capacity of 199,300 tons. 


COMPARATIVE TONNAGE AND EARNINGS PER DOLLAR OF INVESTMENT. 



Investment. 

Tonnage 

(season). 

Gross 

earnings. 

Tons per 
dollar of 
investment. 

Gross earn¬ 
ings per 
dollar of 
investment. 

Lake fleet. 

$11,099,958 
1,000,000 

3,260,683 
640,000 

$4,981,836 
1,220,000 

0.29 

$0. 45 

River fleet. 

.64 

1.22 



Gross earnings per ton: Lake, $1.53; river (estimated), $1.75. 


Appendix A. 

[Missouri River. Before the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors of United States. Improvement 
of Missouri River. Supplemental brief for the commercial interests of Missouri River Valley in oppo¬ 
sition to report of Lieut. Col. Herbert Deakyne. Hearing Kansas City, Oct. 19,1915. Prepared under 
the direction of the Commercial Club of Kansas City. River improvement committee: W. T. Bland, 
chairman, president McPike Drug Co. (wholesale druggists); F. G. Crowell, vice president and sec¬ 
retary Hall- Baker Grain Co. (grain and elevator operators); Walter S. Dickey, president W. S. Dickey 
Clay Manufacturing Co., and president Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co.; C. D. Parker 
(C. D. Parser & Co., U. S. Water & Steam Supply Co.); Leon Smith, president Smith-McCord-Town- 
send Dry Goods Co. (wholesale dry goods); O. V. Wilson, president Ryley-Wilson Grocery Co. (whole¬ 
sale grocers): R. L. Redpath, plant manager American Radiator Co.' Assisting officials: Hon. Wm. 
P. Borland, Representative in Congress, lifth district of Missouri; E. M. Clendening, general secre¬ 
tary the Commercial Club; R. D. Sangster, transportation commissioner the Commercial Club; Geo. 
H. Forsee, industrial commissioner the Commercial Club; W. R. Rowe, assistant to the industrial 
commissioner the Commercial Club; A. W. Mackie, secretary Kansas City Missouri River Navigation 
Co.; Jerome Thralls, secretary-cashier Federal reserve bank at Kansas City, Mo.] 

Supplemental Brief. 

AN INCREASE OF RAIL FACILITIES WILL COST MORE THAN THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE 

MISSOURI RIVER. 

It was stated in our principal brief that the present rail facilities in the Missouri 
Valley were by no means adequate to the existing commerce and that an increase in 
these rail facilities in the near future must be anticipated. This increase could occur 
either by the construction of another line between Kansas City and St. Louis, or by 
double-tracking one or more of the existing lines, or both. It was also stated that the 
additional capitalization required for an increase of the rail facilities must be met in 
some form by the shipping public, so that the fact that the river is not improved, assum¬ 
ing that it is susceptible of improvement and actual use as a highway of commerce, 
does not mean that the public or the Nation at lanre will save the amount that would 
be expended for the improvement. It resolves itself into a simple choice of which 
is the better and cheaper form of providing additional facilities for traffic. The Gov¬ 
ernment has already appropriated $6,250,000 for the improvement of the Missouri 
River from Kansas City to the mouth, and the balance necessary to be appropriated 
to complete the project is $13,250,000. 

The Missouri River is equal in carrying capacity to many additional lines of rail¬ 
way, some estimates placing it as high as i00 lines of single-track road. We now wish 
to demonstrate by official figures founded upon actual appraisements that the esti¬ 
mated cost of improving the Missouri River is less than the cost of a single additional 


























148 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


line of railway between Kansas City and St. Louis, and is less even than the cost of 
double-tracking one of the existing iines. We also undertake to show that the cost of 
maintaining a single additional rail line is thirteen times the cost of maintaining the 
improved river, so that even if the original cost of an additional single-rail" line, or 
the double-tracking of an existing line, were cheaper than the continuation of the 
improvement of the Missouri River, the cost of maintenance alone would turn the 
scale in favor of utilizing the river. For this purpose we desire to submit herewith 
a letter from Hon. C. F. Newman, valuation attorney for the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, Division of Valuation for the western district. 

Interstate Commerce Commission, 

Division of Valuation, Office of Western District, 

Interstate Building, Kansas City, Mo., October 21, 1915. 

Hon. Wm. P. Borland, 

518 Keith & Perry Building, Kansas City, Mo. 

Dear Sir: The receipt of your letter of October 22 is hereby acknowledged. 

The engineering department of the Division of Valuation, Interstate Commerce 
Commission, has not completed enough Missouri work to enable them to submit any 
actual data as to the present cost of construction of railways between Kansas City 
and St. Louis. Certain parts of the property of the carriers—for instance, the roadbed, 
ties, rails, etc.—have been inventoried, but the work on other property of the carrier— 
such as, for instance, stations, buildings, etc.—has not been completed between these 
two points. 

From the work they have done, however, and from their experience in the past as 
railroad engineers, the officials in charge of the engineering department of this district 
are able to give a fairly accurate estimate of the total cost of a single-track railway 
between the two cities. Their estimate is that the cost thereof would be approxi¬ 
mately $55,000 per mile, of which $15,000 would represent rolling stock, equipments, 
etc., and $40,000 would represent the roadbed, ties, rails, etc., which, on a basis of 280 
miles, would make a total of $15,400,000. 

On the basis of the present investment of a single railway in terminal properties, 
they estimate that the terminals at Kansas City and St. Louis would cost approximately 
$5,750,000, or $17,000 per mile in round numbers, making a total investment in road 
and equipment of $21,150,000. 

They report that it would cost comparatively very little less to double-track a road 
already in existence, viz, between $30,000 and $35,000 per mile. 

Relative to the cost of maintenance per year, their estimate is that the cost to main¬ 
tain the roadway and equipment would amount to $2,500 per mile per year, or a total 
of $6,500,000 per year for a single railway. This estimate is based upon railway statis¬ 
tics in general, and upon their experience as railway engineers. 

No terminal real-estate appraisals have been made in either city, except that, some 
outlying terminal property has been appraised in Kansas City, which, however, would 
not be indicative of the value of such terminals as would be necessary for a carrier to 
own. 

Neither have any appraisals been made of railway terminals between the two cities. 

It is impossible for us to give you the amount of rolling stock now used over the lines 
in Missouri. Neither are we able to furnish any statistics on the amount of rolling 
stock which would be required of a carrier operating exclusively between St. Louis 
and Kansas City. 1he estimate of the engineers is, however, that the following would 
be necessary, viz; Fifty locomotives, 40 passenger cars, 3,000 freight and miscellaneous 
cars. 


Trusting that this information wall be satisfactory, I beg to remain, 
Yours, truly, 


C. F. Newman, 
Valuation Attorney. 


We desire also to submit a letter from Hon. T. M. Bradbury, secretary of the Public 
Service Commission of the State of Missouri: 


State of Missouri, Public Service Commission, 

Jefferson City, October 26, 1915 . 

Hon. Wm. P. Borland, 

Member Committee on Appropriation *, 

518 Keith 6c Perry Building, Kama ? City, Mo. 

Dear Sir: This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 22 requesting 
data on cost of constructing and maintaining a single-track line between St. Louis and 
Kansas City ; also an estimate of cost to double-track any of the existing lines between 
above points. 

Beg to inform you that the commission has no specific data covering the points 
you mention. The Interstate Commerce Commission specifies the accounts to be 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 149 


currently kept by carriers and although the reports to this commission contain a 
statement of operating expenses for the State of Missouri, these figures are only ap¬ 
proximations and not based on actual records. 

In the recent application for an increase in freight and passenger rates before this 
commission, certain data relative to reproduction costs and operating expenses were 
submitted which may be of some service to you. The exhibits are voluminous, 
detaile 1, and unfortunately in many cases disconnected. The following information 
gathered from various sources may sen e your needs: 

r i he Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Railway introduced testimony to the effect 
that their single-track line from St. Louis to Kansas City, a distance of 285.36 miles, 
cost $17,101,920.16, or $59,930.19 per mile exclusive of equipment; adding the equip¬ 
ment the cost per mile was given as $70,829. The Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific 
Railway, however, has no terminals at St. Louis. 

We are sending you under separate cover copy of Missouri Pacific Railway Exhibit 1 
No. 22 submitted in application mentioned above, 'this exhibit is a valuation of 
Missouri Pacific Railway property in Missouri, by C. II. Middleton, an independent 
engineer acting for the carrier, d he second column of figures headed ‘ Main line” 
and totaling $42,884,440, covers the main line from St. Louis to Kansas City: the third 
column refers to the river route- Cole Junction to Independence. Mr. Middleton 
testified that this e> hil it includes value of 281 acres of land in Kansas City and 233.6 
acres in fit. Louis. Restates the average cost of right of way land, exclusive of Kansas 
City and St. Louis, is $65 per acre, and quotes square foot prices of land used in valua¬ 
tion at Kansas City, as follows: State line to Broadway, 52.75; Broadway to Grand 
Avenue, 52; Grand Avenue to Troost Avenue, $1.50; Troost to Parker, $1: Parker to 
Cleveland, 60 cents; Cleveland to Topping, 40 cents; Topping to Kansas City street 
crossirg, 15 cents; Kansas City street crossing to city limits, 10 cents; Edgewater ter¬ 
minals in wholesale district, $1.90. 

r \ he total Missouri mileage of the Missouri Pacific Railway covered by foregoing 


ex hi: it is 945.56 miles. 

In the annual report of the Missouri Pacific Railway for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1914, we find the cost of maintenance of way and’ structures given as 
$1,545,277.31, and of maintenance of equipment $1,884,373.82. r lhis, of course, 
covers all lines of the Missouri Pacific Railway in the State of Missouri, and represents 
annual charge. 

During the hearings of the carriers’ application for rate increases, the Chicago, 
Burlington & Quincy Railroad submitted their valuation based on three times the 
assessed valuation, which they claim is commonly used. We, therefore, are sending 
you a copy of the journal of the State board of equalization for the year 1914; 1 on pages 
118 and 119 you will find the Missouri Pacific main line statistics set forth. 

q here is no data on file showing the approximate cost of double-tracking any of the 
existing lines between fit. Louis and Kansas City. 

If there is any additional information in the files of the commission that will be of 
assistance to you, or if you can send some one to Jefferson City familiar with your 
requirements, the commission will gladly render him any assistance possible in pre¬ 
paring the statistics desired. 

For the Commission. 

T. M. Bradbury, 

Secretary. 


MORE STATEMENTS FROM SHIPPERS. 


The Hayuood Alfalfa Warehouse Co. 

The importance of the Missouri River boat line from Kansas City to St. Louis as 
it runs at present is but a small part of its value to the western shipper. 

With our little Missouri River line as a starter, barge lines are already underway 
from Chicago to New Orleans with rates on same basis, or 80 per cent of the all-rail 
rate which opens up a vastly more important business than any haul from Kansas 
(ity to St Louis. For instance, the all-rail rate from Colorado common points to 
New Orleans is 38 cents; the river rate is 34.2 cents, a saving of 3.8 cents, or 76 cents 

^Theall-rail rate to Boston is 50.4 cents, while the water rate via Missouri, Missis¬ 
sippi, and Illinois Rivers, the Chicago Canal, and the Great Lakes would be 45.3 

cents or a saving of $1.02 per ton. 

The Panama Canal has recently put into effect a flat 35-cent water rate from Pacific 
coast points to Atlantic seaboard points, enabling the California alfalfa miller to 
market choice alfalfa meal in Kew Tork, Boston, or Philadelphia at $22 per ton. 


‘Not printed. 




150 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Deduct from this $22 the 50.4 cents all-rail rate from Colorado common points and 
you have $11.92 left for the Colorado miller, which will not pay cost of raw materials. 

His only recourse is the two rivers to New Orleans on a 34.2-cent rate, and an ocean 
rate of 10 cents to Atlantic seaboard, total 44.2-cent rate, or $8.84 deducted from $22 
leaves $13.16, which will barely let him out in competition with California. 

The situation developed by this 35-cent ocean rate is so serious to all Middle West 
alfalfa millers that on present all-rail rates he is totally excluded from Atlantic coast 
territory. 

We have given the Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. during the past 12 
months 1,660 tons alfalfa meal, which would have been multiplied many times 
were they able to let us out of St. Louis, South and Southeast. 

This the present railroad rates will not permit, as witness the following Kansas 
City to Cairo all-rail for group 3 points is 9 cents. 

The river rate to St. Louis 6.4 cents, plus the flat rail rate St. Louis to Cairo 8.8 
cents, total 15.2 cents, penalizing the boat line 6.2 cents, or $1.24 per ton. 

Likewise on New Orleans business add the river rate to St. Louis 6.4 cents, to the 
flat all-rail rate St. Louis to New Orleans 16 cents, equals 22.4 cents, while the*all-rail 
rate is 19 cents, a penalty of 3.4 cents, or 78 cents per ton on the boat line. 

Or, take Memphis: Add the river rate, 6.4 cents, to the flat rail rate of 10 cents from 
St. Louis, equals 16.4 cents, while the all-rail rate is 13 cents, a penalty of 3.4 cents on 
the boat line. 

The State of Colorado alone ships through Kansas City to the South and Southeast 
over 100,000 tons of alfalfa meal annually, 75 per cent of which could and would 
move by our boat line if they were able to handle it. 

Mark my words, gentlemen, if a water outlet is not provided in the very near future, 
a large part of this tonnage will be lost to Colorado and Kansas City and be absorbed 
by California through her cheap Panama Canal rates. 

The sole and only salvation of this business to Kansas City and the West is cheaper 
water transportation. Alfalfa meal is a new feed; it has only been on the market 
eight or nine years, and it is but a drop in the bucket compared to the grain by-product 
feeds like bran and shorts, and they will all be affected in exactly the same way. 

My experience with our boat line has been unexpectedly satisfactory; I have 
found them prompt, reliable, and the courtesy extended to shippers is indeed pleasing. 
I believe the attitude of the railroads to the boat line in rate matters is a mistake; 
the boats should be and are a help rather than price competition. 

In times of heavy crop movements the railroads are utterly unable to handle the 
business and should and will in the future welcome the relief afforded on low-priced 
tonnage by our boat lines. 

Gentlemen, we are strong for the boat line; may it wax big and hearty and extend 
its operation to all navigable waters of the Mississippi River Basin. 

A. S. Barada & Co. — Chemical ; and essential oils. 

Answering your favor of the 9th regarding the use we have made of the Missouri 
River in connection with the Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. service, 
beg to advise that we would have no trouble whatever in routing from 10 to 15 or 20 
cars per season over the boat line. 

Our experience is that they have only been able to take care of about one out of 
every four or five we have routed their way, as they were unable to take care of the 
business, due to the condition of the river and their limited capacity. 

We make it a rule to route considerable of our freight via the boat line, and in the 
event they are unable to take care of same the cars are rerouted via all-rail and East 
St. Louis. 

Irving-Pitt Manufacturing Co.—Books and forms. 

We could, however, use the boat line from here to St. Louis to the extent of some 
12 to 15 cars per year, which we realize is small in comparison with that of other 
concerns located in Kansas City. 

Webb-Freyschlag Mercantile Co. 

Since the opening of navigation for this year up to the present date the Missouri 
River Navigation Co. have delivered to us approximately 46 tons of freight and 
several shipments are yet to be delivered. We intend using the Missouri River 
Navigation Co. just as extensively as possible, and also want to aid them in any way, 
as it means a great deal to Kansas City merchants and also to merchants in Kansas 
City territory. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 151 


We have in some instances hesitated to route light shipments via the boat line, 
because of the fact that their delivery, with the river in its present condition, is not 
regular and safe to count on in any certain time. 

Respectfully submitted. 

The Commercial Club of Kansas City. 


Statement and Argument on Behalf of the Commercial Club of Omaha 
Before the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors. 

[Statement and anrument supplementary to representations presented at Kansas City hearing on behaif 

of the Commercial Club of Omaha Submitte 1 bv the Missouri River Navigation (Committee. J. W. 

Gamble, chairman: Robert H. Manley, commissioner John L. Kennedy, of counsel.! 

I. The record made before the board of engineers at the Kansas City hearing is 
voluminous. Not all of the presentation is relevant to the single issue involved. 
This brief has been prepared with the idea of reducing the presentation of the posi¬ 
tion of Omaha to the narrowest limits consistent with the importance of the subject 
and the extent of the interest of this community. A chapter will be devoted to 
discussion of the report of the district engineer officer, another to the subject of river 
improvement in its broad and general aspects, and a third to the particular situation 
of this community. 

II. Report of the district engineer officer. The essential features of this report are: 

(1) The admission that it has been demonstrated that the improvement of the river 
from Kansas (Tty to its mouth can be completed within the total estimated cost. 

(2) The question of modifying or abandoning the project is one to be decided by a 
comparison of the cost involved with the benefits derived. 

(3) The benefits derived are represented by the increased facilities for navigation. 

(4) The advantages that commerce will obtain from the improvement are; (a) Actual 
saving in freight charges; (b) competitive effect on railroad rates. 

(5) The saving made on present traffic ($10,000) is inadequate to warrant the ex¬ 
penditure of $1,100,000 per annum in interest and maintenance. 

(6) The inference that there is ample governmental machinery for controlling the 
railroads and no necessity therefore for improving the river in order to bring about 
effective competition. 

(7) That the river is paralleled by railroads on both banks and that the facilities 
for caring for commerce are ample. 

(8) That the project (for improvement of the river) must stand or fall as judged by 
the criterion of prospective commerce, and that the prospect does not warrant the 
improvement. 

Before proceeding to discuss the report of the district engineer officer, we respect¬ 
fully submit that we will do so in no spirit of hostility. We are satisfied to proceed 
upon the assumption that the report is offered as the honest opinion of the district 
officer based upon the facts as ascertained and observed by him. Our purpose will 
be to indicate to the board the facts that were probably not accessible to the district 
officer, and to offer the board our conclusions based on the broader showing. We 
venture to suggest that the report of the district officer would probably have been 
varied materially if the situation had been presented to him as fully as it has been 
to the board. 

III. (1) Since it is admitted in the report that the project for the improvement of 
the lower river can be completed within the estimates and that from the engineering 
standpoint, no insuperable difficulties are presented, there is no necessity for going 
back of the action of Congress and dealing with the basic questions. The only ques¬ 
tion is, Is the situation such now in the light of existing,facts, that the board would be 
justified in recommending to Congress that the millions already expended be 
“charged off” and the improvements abandoned? This brings us naturally to num¬ 
ber (2). We agree with tne report that the question before the board is one which 
must be decided by balancing the cost against the benefits derived. Our contention 
is that the question of the benefits derived has infinitely broader aspects than those 
suggested in the report under heads (3), (4), and (5). Our contention is further that 
the improvement of the navigable rivers draining the great Mississippi Valley is 
absolutely necessary to the development of the country. We admit, of course, that 
this may*affect the railroad rate structure as a whole, but that is a mere incident. 
The real, basic fact is that rail transportation is not developing fast enough to take care 
of the natural growth of commerce in the Mississippi Valley. The railroads admit 
the truth of this and claim it is due to their inability to get the capital necessary to 



152 MISSOITRT RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


make additions to their plants because they are not earning enough money above 
operative cost to make railway investments attractive. They have urge ! this con¬ 
tention upon the Interstate Commerce Commission and upon the public consistently 
and continuously since 1910. If the rivers in this valley are not utilize 1. we will 
find ourselves chronically short of transportation facilities. Right now, there is a 
shortage of.cars and the movement of our commerce is congested. The same thing 
happens nearly every fall, when grain, lumber, coal, and merchandise are offering 
freely. Interstate Commerce Commission has recognized the car shortage and has 
circularized the country, urging shippers to cut down car detention and to utilize 
car space fully. 

The only escape from this situation is utilization of the navigable streams This 
will divide the tonnage of the valley into two parts—that which requires rail trans¬ 
portation and that which may be water-borne. The real and big benefit from the 
development of water transportation will come from relieving the rail carriers of the 
heavy bulk freight and permitting them to use their facilities for the balance. As we 
will show later, there is ample business for both rail and river. Both the rail carriers 
and the shipping public, therefore, will benefit by the full use of the rivers. That 
benefit can only be measured by the tremendous development it will bring to the 
entire Mississippi Valley, a result far transcending any direct, traceable money benefit 
such as those referred to in the report under discussion. It will amply justify all the 
expenditure necessary for the improvement of the Missouri River and we submit 
that the board is justified by the situation in adopting the broader view because the 
history of the development of the valley shows to every student of it that it has more 
than justified the expenditure of all the millions already granted by the Government 
for the creation and improvement of rail transportation facilities. 

(6) The district engineer officer proffers the suggestion that there is ample govern¬ 
mental machinery for controlling and regulating the railways. If we were seeking to 
have the river made navigable for the sole purpose of breaking down railway rates, 
it is possible we could obtain the same result by invoking the regulatory power. We 
reiterate that such is not our basic reason for desiring water carriage. We have relied 
too long upon the development of rail transportation. It has admittedly not kept 
pace with the growth of commerce. Water transportation must be developed to 
relieve and supplement rail carriage. There is no power vested in any regulatory 
body under the present state of the law to compel the creation of addition il rail 
transportation facilities. There are on the other hand severe limitations upon the 
actions of those tribunals. Recently, all rates in the vast territory east of the Missis¬ 
sippi and north of the Ohio River were permitted to be advanced 5 per cent because 
the carriers showed that they needed the money. The demand for similar advances 
in the valley were partially granted upon the same showing. No relief from present 
rail conditions is possible, therefore except by the development of new avenues of 
transportation. If the railroads were relieved of the burden of transporting those 
commodities that can be handled more cheaply by water, they could utilize their 
present facilities more effectively and more cheaply and would not be faced with the 
necessity for obtaining vast amounts of additional capital for extension of their 
facilities. 

(7) It is true that the river is paralleled upon both banks, from Sioux City to its 
mouth, by railroad tracks. The conclusion drawn from that fact is, however, erro¬ 
neous. No one will contend that the navigation of the river is necessary in order 
that purely local traffic of the cities and villages located on the river may be cared for. 
The claim is much broader than that. The local business of those communities is 
but an infinitesimal percentage of the traffic the river would carry if it could be utilized. 
It is the great stream of traffic from and to the hinterland, of which traffic the cities 
of St. Louis, Kansas City, St. Joseph, and Omaha are depots and entrepots, for which 
river transit is required. And if it is provided, the rail carriers paralleling the river 
will find themselves better able to care for the purely local traffic than they are now. 

(8) We agree heartily with the conclusion of the district engineer officer that the 
question of improvement of the river must stand or fall as judged by the criterion of 
prospective commerce, but we feel that the prospective commerce must be estimated 
upon an infinitely broader basis than that employed. It is stated that the project 
of improvement below Kansas City is 9 per cent completed. When Congress was 
pouring millions of money and granting millions of acres of land to aid in the devel¬ 
opment of rail transportation, who would have had the temerity to call an abrupt 
halt to those gifts and grants when one of the projects—say the Union Pacific—was 
completed from Omaha to Columbus, Nebr., which is 9 per cent of the distance to 
Ogden? No. Congress had the broader vision and took the broader view, just as 
we confidently anticipate this board will do. And we venture to suggest to the board 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 153 


that even the wildest visionary among all the advocates of the building of the trans¬ 
continental railways would never have dared to predict that the development of the 
western country would justify the building of seven transcontinental railways or that 
within 50 years of the opening of the first one those railways would, jointly, carry 
147,000,000 tons of freight, as they did in the year ending June 30,1914. (Preliminary 
Abstract Statistics of Common Carriers, Interstate Commerce,Commission.) 

IV. When the original States delegated to the Federal Government exclusive con¬ 
trol of commerce between the States the grant was not idly or lightly made. It was 
complete. Through the Congress the Central Government controls all the highways 
and the traffic that moves upon them, so far as that commerce is not the purely domestic 
concern of a single State. This enormous grant of power carries with it the grave 
obligation to so administer it that the greatest good will be accomplished and the 
largest benefits secured to the Nation as a whole. Congress has recognized this respon¬ 
sibility and has done much to discharge the duty properly. Witness the tremendous 
grants of money and lands to induce the building of railways. Witness the millions 
poured into harbor improvements, the building of canals, docks, turnpikes, all for 
the development of commerce, never, it should be understood, to take care of com¬ 
merce already created. It is a truism that the creation of facilities must precede the 
employment of them. 

We confidently assert that not one of the projects upon which such vast sums have 
been expended has directly repaid the Government for the expenditure, and we also 
desire to emphasize the point that not one of them was ever conceived and carried 
out upon the basis of a demonstration that it would pay at once. The Pacific railroads 
were aided largely because their construction was as much of a military as a commer¬ 
cial necessity. The Panama Canal—that glorious monument to the ability and effi¬ 
ciency of the Army engineers—might never have been undertaken by this Govern¬ 
ment except for the incident of the voyage of the Oregon. The entire east and west 
bound commerce handled by the seven trunk railroad boat lines on the Great Lakes 
during 1914 was 3.524.000 tons. To provide highways and harbors for this the Gov¬ 
ernment spent $60,000,000 on the Great Lakes. The State of New York does not 
expect a direct return upon the $100,000,000 it is putting into its barge canal. The 
tolls would be prohibitory upon the direct cost and maintenance basis. So the 
Missouri River will never be made navigable if we must wait until we can demon¬ 
strate that tonnage is in sight to warrant the expenditure of the money. Of the 250,000 
miles of railway in the United States only a very small percentage paid at the start. 
All our means of transportation have been built as developers and every one of them 
has justified the faith of its promoters. 

It is a remarkable fact that this Nation, with the greatest natural resources of any 
the world has ever known, in which such wonderful progress has been made, such 
unprecedented prosperity enjoyed, should have proceeded so slowly, so haltingly in 
the development and use of its water highways. 

No student of present rail transportation conditions is unaware of the really dangerous 
situation in which our country stands to-day because of her failure to develop her 
waterways. Every time there is an ordinary increase of the amount of traffic offered, 
the railways become congested and immense losses are sustained by the'public to 
whom no other means of transportation are open. It remains for this board of engi¬ 
neers to give a great impetus to the growing movement for providing a means of escape 
from that constantly recurring condition. If no other result should ever flow from 
navigation of the Missouri-Mississippi Rivers than that of curing the (almost) annual 
congestion of business and preventing the yearly car shortage on the railways, the 
economic gain from that one thing would pay for the entire work. We urge upon the 
board to take the broad view and urge the completion of the contemplated river 
improvement, which will be a step toward the ultimate rescue of the valley from the 
consequences’of the possible breakdown of railway transportation facilities. 

V. The city of Omaha is so situated, geographically, that it must compete with 
Chicago, St. Louis, St. Paul, and Kansas City for the trade of the surrounding terri¬ 
tory. It has seen Chicago and St. Paul and Minneapolis reap large benefits from 
their proximity to water shipping facilities. It has watched the development of 
same facilities between Kansas City and St. Louis and has aided Kansas City in every 
move that city has made to utilize the river, knowing full well that the opening of 
the lower river to practical use must at once be followed by the employment of the 
upper river. Alike with every city in the Missouri River Valley, Omaha has suffered 
from railroad congestion, car shortage, and their attendant evils. More recently, 
we have witnessed the direct effect of the opening of the Panama Canal, which has 
depressed rail rates between the Atlantic and Pacific seaboards to the lowest point 
they have reached since the railroad rebate became an outlawed practice. For all 
of these reasons, our people feel we must have water transportation. We must be in 


154 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


a position where the reduction of rail rates across the continent by reason of the com¬ 
petition of the canal route will not leave us upon the top of a high hump and give all 
the benefits—direct and indirect—to our neighbors on the Pacific, the Atlantic and 
the Gulf. We can not pay rail freights from the Atlantic or the Gulf, if St. Louis 
Chicago, and other cities have an entire water haul. Unless we are upon navigable 
waters, our trade will be constricted in every direction. Instead of continuing to 
be a great distributing center as we are now, we will be a mere country town, and our 
trade will go to our more fortunate neighbors who have water carriage accessible. 

For all these reasons, we urge that the improvement of the Missouri River be con¬ 
tinued. We have shown the board that we have per annum the following potential 
water tonnage now: 


Inbound: Tons - 

Coal. 620,100 

Hardwood lumber. 20, 000 

Pine lumber. 72, 500 

Outbound: 

Grain (67,000 cars). 2,211,000 

Other carload freight (20,788 cars, estimated at 20 tons to the car).... 415, 760 


Total. 3,339,360 


an amount equal to the entire tonnage in 1914 of the seven big boat lines on the Great 
Lakes. This takes no account of the immense inbound tonnage of iron, steel, wire, 
nails, bar and merchant iron, pig iron, a large portion of which could be carried by 
water. 

Finally, we have joined our customers at Decatur in establishing water navigation 
and are using the upper river in its present untamed and unkempt state for the trans¬ 
portation of merchandise and commodities to Decatur and live stock and grain back. 
We have built a warehouse on the water front and have two boats and some barges 
in the trade—all this upon the faith that some day we will be enabled to employ 
this splendid facility of commerce to the fullest extent. 

VI. To sum up the situation, we earnestly recommend to the board that the original 
plan for improvement of the lower river be carried out, so that, in the meantime, 
further plans may be formulated for improvement of the upper river. We urge this 
because we believe it is necessary to provide water navigation for the purpose (a) of 
delivering us from constantly recurring rail congestion; (6) of putting us in shape to 
reap the benefit of the canal route; and (c) of thereby providing the proper stimulus 
for a commercial development that will exceed that of the 50-year period following 
the completion of the transcontinental railways. 

Let the board but take the initial step, the adoption of the broad view and the 
measurement of this project by the big standard and its action will not only meet the 
approval of all the people who at present inhabit the valley, but of those uncounted 
millions who will be brought here by the fruition of those plans that such foresight 
and wisdom will enable us to inaugurate. 

Respectfully submitted. 

Commercial Club of Omaha, 

Missouri River Navigation Committee. 

J. W. Gamble, Chairman. 

Robt. H. Manley, Commissioner. 

John L. Kennedy, of Counsel. 

Omaha, Nebr., November 4, 1915. 


Hearing of Board of Army Engineers on Kansas City's Appeal from the 

Deakyne Report. 

index. 

Page. 


Announcement by chairman of purpose of hearing. 156 

Preliminary statement by Congressman W. P. Borland... 156 

Walter S. Dickey, president Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. 160: 

A. W. Mackie, secretary Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. 168 

Col. P. W. Coyle, commissioner Business Men’s Association, St. Louis. 180 

A. D. Spear, Business Men’s Association, Chamois, Mo. 182 















MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 155 


Afternoon session, October 19. 

Page. 

Walter Parker, general manager, Association of Commerce, New Orleans. 186 

Col. Fred Bennett, manufacturer, Joliet, Ill. 192 

E. L. Platt, Commerce Club, St. Joseph, Mo. 195 

E. J. McVan, Commercial Club, Omaha, Nebr. 196 

Jewell Mayes, secretary, State Board Agriculture, Ray County, Mo. 203 

J. W. Brockett, St. Joseph, Mo.. 205 

M. M. Stephens, chairman Illinois Waterways Commission. 207 

C. F. Shafer, Saline County, Mo. 208 

August Wohlt, Hermann, Mo. 211 

Curtis Hill, city engineer, Kansas City, Mo. 212 

A. A. Poland, general freight agent Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co.. 213 

Evening session, October 19, 1915. 

Edward F. Goltra, president Missouri Iron Co., St. Louis. 230 

Harry Burkhart, Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co., St. Louis. 233 

J. W. Anderson, manager Kansas City Kornfalfa Feed Milling Co. 235 

Chester Newman, manager National Aniline Chemical Co., Kansas City. 237 

John H. Wiles, vice president Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co. 233 

Morning session, Wednesday, October 20, 1915. 

Chairman’s statement of time of closing hearing. 238 

Robert H. Manley, commissioner Commercial Club, Omaha. 239 

J. S. White, president H. F. Cady Lumber Co., Omaha. 240 

Charles F. Faeth, Faeth Iron Co., Kansas City. 244 

William Yolker, jobber and manufacturer, Kansas City. 244 

Leon Smith, wholesale dry goods, Kansas City. 245 

Frank Ennis, Ennis, Hanly, Blackburn Coffee Co., Kansas City. 247 

C. J. Schmelzer, Schmelzer Arms Co., Kansas City. 248 

R. L. Redpath, manager American Radiator Co., Kansas City. 249 

R. M. Maxwell, wholesale dry goods, Kansas City. 249 

W. B. Richards, Richards & Conover Hardware Co., Kansas City. 250 

C. W. Jenkins, Jenkins Sons’ Music Co., Kansas City... 251 

John C. Lester, Ridenour-Baker Grocery Co., Kansas City. 252 

Charles B. Overton, dental supplies, Kansas City. 253 

O. V. Wilson, Ryley-Wilson Grocery Co., Kansas City. 254 

C. D. Dooley, Peet Bros., soaps, Kansas City.. 257 

C. D. Parker, plumbers’ supplies, Kansas City.. 259 

Walter S. Dickey, recalled. 261 

John W. McCoy, traffic manager, William Yolker & Co. 262 

Edward F. Goltra, recalled.. 264 

William T. Bland, Kansas City Commercial Club. 265 

John W. McCoy, recalled. 266 

A. W. Mackie, recalled. 266 

Walter S. Dickey, recalled. 268 

L. M. Kennedy, Omaha Commercial Club. 270 

C. M. Hardenbergh, manager, Southwest Milling Co. 271 

H. A. Fitch, president, Kansas City Structural Steel Co. 274 

Maximilian von Pagenhardt, naval architect, Kansas City, Mo. 275 

Afternoon session, October 20. 

R. D. Sangster, transportation commissioner Kansas City Commercial Club.. 282 

W. F. Decker, Commercial Club, Minneapolis, Minn. ■ 293 

W. P. Borland, given leave to submit additional statements. 280 

L. M. Kennedy, Omaha, given leave to submit additional statements. 282 

Time granted for submitting additional statements. 281 

Arguments. 

Senator James A. Reed. 294 

Congressman W. P. Borland... 298 

Judge W. T. Bland... 300 




















































156 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


HEARING OF BOARD OF ARMY ENGINEERS ON KANSAS CITY’S APPEAL FROM THE 

DEAKYNE REPORT. 

Assembly Room, Commercial Club, Kansas City, Mo., 

October 10, 1015—10 a. m. 

Present: Col. William M. Black, Corps of Engineers, chairman; Col. F. V. 
Abbot, Col. John P>kldle, Col. Henry C. Newcomer, Col. Harry Taylor, Lieut. 
Col. E. Eveletli Winslow, and Lieut. Col. C. A. F. Flagler, Corps of Engineers; 
A. IL. Weber, secretary. 

Chairman Black. The meeting will please come to order. 

The present proceeding results from the following extract from the act of 
Congress of March 4, 1915. The river and harbor act approved March 4, 1915, 
by section 14. provides: 

“ Sec. 14. That the following projects now under improvement shall be re¬ 
examined, in accordance with the law for the original examination of rivers 
and harbors, with a view to obtaining reports whether the adopted projects 
shall be modified or the improvement abandoned.” 

Among the projects referred to is the Missouri River, Mo., mouth to Kansas 
City. 

In accordance with the method of procedure, the district officer was called 
upon to submit a report as to his opinion of the value of this improvement to 
the United Sttaes. The report having been unfavorable, in accordance also with 
the regular method of procedure, a notice was sent to all parties known to be in¬ 
terested of this unfavorable report with a concrete statement of the causes, 
and a public hearing having been requested, the following notice was sent out: 

“ L t nited States Engineer Office, 

“Postal Telegraph Building, Kansas City, Mo., September 17, 1015. 

“Notiee of hearing. —A public hearing will be held by the Board of Engineers 
for Rivers and Harbors at 10 o’clock a. m. Tuesday, October 19, 1915, at the 
assembly room of the Commercial Club, Eighth and Central Streets. Kansas 
City, Mo., for the consideration of the question of modifying or abandoning the 
project for the improvement of the Missouri River from Kansas City to the 
mouth. 

“All interested parties are invited to be present and express their views. 
While oral statements will be given due consideration, it is desirable that all 
important facts and statistics should be submitted in writing, in order that they 
may form a part of the permanent records of the board. 

“ Herbert Deakyne, 

“Lieutenant Colonel, Co?’ps of Engineers .” 

The notice of this hearing was sent to everyone supposed to be interested, 
as far as they could be ascertained. A list 1 of the people to whom notice was 
sent is here and can be examined by anybody who may desire. 

This is an important hearing, and a great deal of testimony will be sub¬ 
mitted, and I purpose first to ask Congressman Borland to take charge of pre¬ 
senting the side of the case he represents, and I will ask him to call upon 
such persons as he pleases, one after another, until he shall conclude all he 
wishes to present, and then opportunity will be given to others to present their 
views. 

Congressman Borland. Col. Black and members of the board, we are cer¬ 
tainly very much delighted that you gentlemen have decided to come here in 
person and hear these commercial interests of the Missouri Valley. We feel 
that by your coming here in person and reviewing the work and hearing the 
testimony on the ground a very much clearer and broader view can be taken 
of the situation than by a hearing in Washington. 

We purpose in this hearing to present not arguments but a succession of 
facts and figures by witnesses who are familiar with the particular line of tes¬ 
timony that they intend to give. 

You will recall, of course, that this project was adopted in the river and 
harbor act of July 25, 1912. Preceding that there had been agitation of about 
five years’ duration in the Missouri Valley for the restoration of commerce on 
the Missouri River, and the improvement of the Missouri for navigaton. That 
resulted in the report of District Officer Capt. Edward H. Schulz. Corps of 


1 Not printed. 









MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CTTY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 157 


Engineers, of Kansas City, outlining a plan of improvement substantially as 
afterwards adopted. In tlie Congress of 1910 that plan was not adopted as an 
improvement plan, although the tirst appropriation for permanent improve¬ 
ment of .$1,000,000 was made by that Congress. But in that appropriation 
provision was inserted that a special board of engineers should come to Kansas 
City and reexamine the project for improvement of the Missouri River. That 
board came, and made its report in November, 1910. 

Following that report, Chairman Alexander, of the Rivers and Harbors Com¬ 
mittee of the House of Representatives, came and reexamined the river, and 
thereafter reported a bill, which became a law, with the approval of the 
President. 

Proceedings have been going on, improvements have been going on under 
that act of 1912 for approximately three years. Up to March 4 of this year 
only three and one-half million dollars had been spent upon the permanent 
improvement of the bank, but that has not all been permanent improvement; 
some was in assembling plans and some in maintenance that was charged to 
that account. The total expenditure has been $6,250,000, of which all since 
October, 1914, has been used during the construction season; they were not 
used up to the construction season of 1915. 

We were somewhat startled when the report was sent in by the district offi¬ 
cer, recommending that this project be abandoned, and we were further 
startled by the fact that he based that report upon the commerce of the river 
in 1913. We intend to show that since 1913 there has been a very substantial 
and satisfactory increase of commerce on the Missouri River, not only in the 
quantity of the commerce but in the character of the commerce. 

It seems that the improvement of the river was begun practically through 
an understanding between the commercial interest of the Missouri Valley and 
the committee of the House of Representatives that the commercial interests 
here should restore navigation in a substantial and successful way; that they 
were to establish a boat line on the Missouri River between Kansas City and 
St. Louis, and that has been done and has been operated successfully on a 
partially improved river, which had not reached the point where successful 
operation could be carried on from a commercial standpoint. But the im¬ 
provement in commerce on that boat line, which is the main feature of the 
river navigation to-day, has been very rapid and satisfactory until they have 
now reached the point where they are seeking business entirely on the service 
they are enabled to give and the rates they are able to make. Their rates 
are 80 per cent of the railroad rates and their service now is approximately 
very close to rail service. And we intend to show that the growth of this 
service, begun in 1913, with a very poor channel, and absurdly poor channel 
in 1914, on account of the existing low water in that year, has grown 
steadily better until 1915, until the merchants and shippers in this locality, 
realizing the improvement in service, have begun to give more and more freight 
to the boat line. 

We have prepared here, at the instance of the Commercial Club, of Kansas 
City, a brief, giving a great many facts and figures which we will not be able 
to give in the oral testimony. In the concluding portion of that brief you will 
observe a large number of statements of shippers, men whose commercial 
standing and whose rank in the business world is easily ascertainable, who 
give their own experience and statement as to what commerce can be diverted 
to the Missouri River on an improved channel and a satisfactory service. 

Now we purpose, in the first place, to show tlie growth of commerce in re¬ 
lation to the growth of the improvement of the river, and to show you that 
the growth of commerce has far exceeded the rate at which the river was im¬ 
proved by the Federal Government. Then we purpose to show that the bulk 
of commerce, the commercial production, and shipping in this territory, is 
greater than it was when Congress adopted the project of improving the river 
on the figures of 1907. 

We purpose to show that the commerce in this section has greatly exceeded 
the production of 1907, and that the commerce now is greatly in excess of 
what it was when Congress adopted the project. 

We purpose to show that there has not been a single element in the commer¬ 
cial situation that does not show that the improvement of the river is necessary. 
On the contrary, the restriction on the facilities of the railroads, and their 
inability now to meet the present commercial needs of the valley, and the 
recent opening of the Panama Canal, all contribute to the further and very 
urgent necessity for the improvement of the river. 


158 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 


We intend to show that the Panama Canal will reduce rates from the At¬ 
lantic seaboard to the Pacific seaboard and the west coast of South America, 
and ocean rates, and that reduction will extend back to the Alleghenies, and 
the Missouri Valley will be at a commercial disadvantage unless it has rates 
connecting it with seaboard and the Panama Canal. All of the changes since 
Congress adopted the project have been in the line of the greater importance 
■of improving the river. 

We intend also to show the growth of production between here and St. Louis, 
the growth of the valley, apd the solving of all the incidental problems neces¬ 
sary to navigation, one of which is terminal facilities at intermediate points; 
another is a fleet of boats adaptable to the river, and another is the adjust¬ 
ment of business conditions among shippers in this territory and their eastern 
connections so that they may use the river. Another is that legislation re¬ 
cently made by Congress as an amendment to the interstate commerce law, 
compelling railroad carriers to interchange business with water carriers, and 
thereby give shippers the right to route their shipments partly by water if 
they desire. Another is the restriction on railroads, if they reduce their rates 
in competition with water carriers, not to raise them unless some other condi¬ 
tion intervenes besides the elimination of the water competition. And we in¬ 
tend to show that all of these things, the legislation which indicates the policy 
of Congress to restore inland water navigation, the opening of the Panama 
Canal, the enlargement of the water system of the Qhicago drainage canal 
and the Illinois River, and the other things referred to, have all been in favor 
of the commercial importance of the Missouri River rather than against it. 

Inasmuch as there are a great many witnesses here to be heard, we are 
going to have these witnesses speak concisely and to the point. This morning 
I purpose to have first the men who have been instrumental in organizing the 
boat line tell this board as to the history of the boat line and of the problems 
to be solved. Then I intend to call the men familiar, as experts, with the 
traffic situation in the Missouri Valley and who know what the question of 
adjustment of rates as to water traffic means, and what the elimination of 
water traffic would mean in the adjustment of freight rates. Then this after¬ 
noon we intend to have come before you actual shippers in Kansas City, show¬ 
ing the volume of their business and the percentage of it they could move by 
water, and the amount that will move by water as rapidly as the channel is 
put in a satisfactory condition. The first witness I am going to call will be 
the gentleman who is chairman of the river improvement committee of the 
Commercial Club, who had a great deal to do with the organization of the com¬ 
mittees that went to Washington and discussed this matter with the Rivers and 
Harbors Committee, and who is thoroughly familiar with the proceedings that 
led up to the congressional legislation adopting the project. That is Judge 
W. T. Bland, of the McPike Drug Co., of Kansas City 

Mr. Mackie. Mr. Bland is not present just now. 

Congressman Borland. Then I will ask Mr. AV. S. Dickey to address the 
board. Mr. Dickey, I would like to have you take the stand. 

Senator Reed. I want to inquire of the board what is their desire with refer¬ 
ence to the method of proceeding. There are a number of Congressmen here 
representing, broadly speaking, the State, the interests of the State at large. 
While I am a resident of Kansas City, I feel it incumbent on me, in a manner, 
to speak on this matter for the general interests of the State. Now, it is 
utterly immaterial to me, and I presume it is somewhat immaterial with these 
Congressmen here, just who you hear first, but I think perhaps the board should 
make a statement. 

Chairman Black. Senator, we have thought you gentlemen had prepared a 
presentation before this board, and that therefore Congressman Borland, as 
your direct representative, would be best able to state the order in which this 
presentation should be given, and therefore we have left the matter to Con¬ 
gressman Borland as the representative of the interests he favors. It is im¬ 
material to us in what order they are presented as long as they are presented 
in logical order, so that we can get hold of the facts more easily. But we 
wish to have this presentation made by those interested in the river in any 
manner they think most impressive for their side. 

Senator Reed. Then it can not be misunderstood that Congressman Borland 
shall present whatever he desires to present, and that the Commercial Club 
shall present whatever it desires; but I apprehend that there are other parts 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 159 

of the State and other interests that should be heard. Now, if the board says 
to me that it does not care to hear from the other parts of the State- 

Congressman Borland (interrupting). The Senator has just come in, and 
I might say for his information that there are a number of gentlemen here from 
other points in the State, and from other points than Missouri, in the Missouri 
and Mississippi Valleys, and arrangements have been made that they all be 
heard; and Senator Reed will be heard. 

Senator Reed. Who made the arrangements? 

Congressman Borland. The Commercial Club committee and others who were 
in consultation yesterday. 

Senator Reed. I certainly can not have any controversy about this matter. 
I take it that this board of engineers wants to hear everybody, and I do not 
know who is constituted to speak for everybody; I suppose nobody. I simply 
want to have an understanding as to when the outside portions of the State and 
the delegations that are here may be heard and when the Congressmen who are 
here from other parts of the State may be heard; that is all. 

Chairman Black. If you will just arrange that with Congressman Borland 
it will be all right. 

Senator Reed. I do not understand I will have to arrange it with Congress¬ 
man Borland; I am trying to arrange it with the board. 

Chairman Black. The board is desirous of hearing everything to be pre¬ 
sented. 

Senator Reed. We would like to have it arranged beforehand, so that there 
may be no misunderstanding. I am certainly desirous that Congressman Bor¬ 
land should present everything he desires in connection with the case, but I 
want to know if there will be an opportunity for the outside portions of the 
State to be heard? 

Chairman Black. You can be assured of that, Senator; the hearing will not 
be adjourned until you gentlemen have had full chance to say all you wish. 

Congressman Borland. I may say, Colonel, that my being here in charge of 
these proceedings is at the request of the Commercial Club, and they have 
invited all possible interests to be here. Many of them were here yesterday 
and participated in the preliminary arrangements and in this program, and they 
will all be here. We are more than anxious that all of those interested in the 
continuation of the present project of the improvement of the Missouri River 
will have a chance to present their view. 

Chairman Black. I take it you are also interested in having a united front 
presented ? 

Congressman Borland. There is no question about that. 

Chairman Black. So that nothing like a controversy may arise. 

Congressman Borland. Certainly. 

Senator Reed. I must not be misunderstood. There is no controversy and 
can not be any controversy or clash. I simply wanted to understand what was 
to be heard this morning—whether it was the presentation of certain people 
who are interested, and that others were to be heard later. 

Chairman Black. I am sorry you were not here when that was announced. 

Senator Reed. The Commercial Club is a great body and has been active in 
the matter and ought to be heard, and Congressman Borland ought to be heard, 
and all these people ought to be heard, and there are some gentlemen who have 
come from a distance, and they ought to be heard, and the parties out in the 
State ought to be heard. 

Chairman Black. All of you will be heard. 

Congressman Borland. I want to say, for the purposes of the record, that this 
hearing is not limited to the Commercial Club. It so chances that they are 
acting as hosts to a great many people they have invited, and they have made 
the preliminary arrangements, but it is far from being limited to the Commercial 
Club of Kansas City. Every interest that could be reached has been reached, 
and all have been invited to take part in this presentation. 

Mr. Bland. I have been selected as chairman of the river improvement com¬ 
mittee of the Commercial Club and, in fact, have been for several years chair¬ 
man, and also chairman of the particular committee which was selected to 
conduct this, or present the side of the Commercial Club of Kansas City, not 
only at this particular hearing but at an early convention to be held in Kansas 
City of the greater Mississippi River Valley. I take it that if there is any 
question between members of Congress as to priority that priority would 
naturally lie with the United States Senator as against a Congressman. 



160 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Chairman Black. As is usual. 

Mr. Bland. There are other Congressmen from the State here, and I take it 
it is not probably a question of that character. Senator Reed is a member of the 
Commerce Committee of the Senate and has been always an ardent supporter 
of the river, and we have always called on him to help us, and he has never 
failed to respond, and I am sure we all appreciate how valuable his assistance 
is, not only as an officer of the United States Government but also as a citizen 
of Kansas City. He is a lawyer of marked ability, and he understands this 
situation thoroughly, and we are delighted to have Senator Reed here to-day, 
as well as Mr. Borland and the other gentlemen who are Members of Congress 
from Missouri, to assist us in the presentation of this matter, and it will be 
entirely satisfactory to the commercial interests for the board to proceed in 
such order as it may see fit. If it is not satisfactory to Senator Reed to pro¬ 
ceed with the order of calling the witnesses contemplated, or if the board has 
any other wish in the matter, the commercial interests would most readily 
yield to any order the board might make. 

Senator Reed. There is no question of priorities. I have not undertaken to 
raise it, and I would not raise it if it had been suggested. There is nothing of 
that kind. I simply wanted to know whether there was going to be an op¬ 
portunity, after Mr. Borland had gotten through with the presentation of 
what he wants to present, for others to be heard. 

Chairman Black. You may be assured of that, sir. 

Senator Reed. And something that, was said, I do not now recall what it 
was, led me to the conclusion that at least some people had a great many 
things on their program. I do not want it to be understood that there is an 
arrangement that precludes others. Now, here is the mayor of the city and 
others. I am glad the Commercial Club’s president, Mr. Bland, says he is glad 
to have our cooperation, and I am very glad to have the cooperation of the 
Commercial Club. This is a sort of free-for-all, as I understand it, and there 
have been some gentlemen consulted, and they have agreed that Mr. Borland 
is to go ahead with that, and I am agreeable to that, and I just wanted one 
matter understood, as to the right of others to be heard if they desire. 

Chairman Black. There is no question about that at all, Senator. 

Congressman Borland. We can assure the Senator of that. 

Senator Reed. I feel, Mr. Borland, that I have the assurance of the board to 
that effect. 

Congressman Borland. Now, Mr. Dickey, will you be heard at this time? 

Walter S. Dickey, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. Will you state your name, please? 

Mr. Dickey. Walter S. Dickey. 

Congressman Borland. I believe you are president of the Kansas City 
Missouri River Navigation Co.? 

Mr. Dickey. I am. 

Congressman Borland. Without any further questions, I will just ask you to 
detail very briefly and concisely the history of your company and its relation 
to the restoration of commerce on the Missouri River. 

Mr. Dickey. Mr. President and members of the board, the Kansas City Mis¬ 
souri River Navigation Co. is an organization composed of forty-two hundred, 
roughly speaking, citizens and business men in this immediate vicinity, most of 
them of Kansas Cty, Mo., as shareholders, and the capital stock is $1,202,000, 
something over $1,000,000 of which has been paid up in cash. This company 
was formed for the purpose—the sole purpose—of engaging in traffic upon the 
Missouri River, and it is, of course, deeply concerned in this question of the 
improvement of the river. 

The people of Kansas City, on various occasions in recent years, have under¬ 
taken to establish a line of boats on this river, the present effort being, in my 
recollection in the last 31 years, and a few years immediately preceding that, 
the fourth effort in which the business men located at this point and in this 
immediate neighborhood, have undertaken to raise capital and put boats upon 
the river for freighting purposes. The first was a barge line principally used 
for grain; the second, an effort locally known here as the Mason Line, an 
incorporated company with a very considerable paid-up capital, which engaged 
in freighting on the river by the use of three packet boats, which were built 
for the purpose, wooden-hull boats; a third, still another effort, largely put 
forth through the officers and members of the Kansas City Commercial Club, 



MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 161 


locally referred to as tlie Jones Line, which carried on business on the river 
for two or three seasons. The last, effort is the one I have just referred to, 
the Kansas City-Missouri River Navigation Co., an incorporated company with 
.$1,202,000 capital, something over $1,000,000 of which has been paid up in 
cash since 1910. 

Being in a business myself, the manufacturer of a bulky commodity, the delivery 
cost of which is largely affected by freights, this question has appealed to me as 
a shipper, and while my commodity is not one that usually moves by boat, 
being more or less fragile and bulky—burnt-clay products—nevertheless, as a 
student of transportation problems and active in this community and well 
acquainted with the commercial interests and necessities of Kansas City, my 
fellow townsmen called upon me in 1909, through a committee, and asked if I 
would take the leadership in a movement to form, organize, and put on foot 
a navigation company to build modern boats and ply this river ; and so that 
movement started in the spring of 1909. 

The Missouri Valley has never at any time given up its hope in this river 
and in using it for freighting purposes. With the ebb and flow of public 
opinion and the inclination of the Federal Congress to develop these great in¬ 
land waterways, the Missouri Valley people have never at any time lost faith 
in their belief that the river was here for that purpose and should and would 
be used as an important freight carrier. 

The enormous amount of possible tonnage that can be moved by water on this 
stream, through this entire western country, goes without saying, and still in 
addressing a body of men such as you gentlemen are, skilled in your profession, 
but removed, perhaps, from the channel of daily trade and not brought daily 
face to face with its conditions like we merchants, manufacturers, dealers, 
and jobbers, we would like, if we could for a moment, to ask you to forget 
temporarily, at least during a part of this hearing, your special profession and 
look upon this question not only as engineers but as citizens and as men 
interested in the development of this great interior country. 

It takes somewhat of an optimist and an enthusiast to see and reach out and 
in the mind to feel the hopes and aspirations of the men who have put their 
money into this Kansas City-Missouri River Navigation Co. and the hope that 
it would not only benefit this immediate community but would benefit this entire 
western country and be a direct and specific benefit to all of the people of the 
United States. 

The people of this city and of this business center have been active and 
energetic in their advocacy of a broader policy by Congress toward the improve¬ 
ment of these great inland waterways. This Kansas City Commercial Club 
has been foremost in that direction. For many years it has sent, without 
a skip and without ever hesitating or failing, a delegation to every kind of a 
convention or conference and to the National Rivers and Harbors Conference 
held annually in Washington, these being delegations of men engaged in busi¬ 
ness here who purposed to use the river, if it could be used, and who did use 
it when it was possible to do so in the actual movement of merchandise. We 
did it believing that this was simply one of the factors in the great transporta¬ 
tion problems. We realize here, as I think every man in this room does, the 
enormous importance of the whole question of transporting things from where 
they are produced to where they are consumed, as evidenced by the great con¬ 
cerns, public and private, engaged in such enterprise. It is the greatest single 
item in the cost of existence, this question of transportation, and we who 
remember the congested condition in 1906 and 1907. when, in this western 
country, the rail carriers were totally unable to handle the freight offered to 
them, fear that that same condition will come again, and we are anxious that 
this avenue of commerce shall be used, and any others that may be developed 
to augment the rail carriers; the hard-surface wagon roads, the use of the 
r iver, the enlargement, expansion, and double-tracking and increased facilities 
of the rail carriers, and in every way possible to enlarge and expand the 
transportation facilities of this country; because it is only a question of time, 
and we who have been merchandising here for a number of years know it is 
only a question of time, until we will be congested again and until the available 
means of transportation will break down under the load. And hence our deep 
concern and anxiety about the development and use of this river. 

Congressman Borland. Will you give to the board some facts in regard to 
the growth of commerce on your line? 

Mr. Dickey. I am coming to that right now. 

H. Doc. 463, 64-1-11 



162 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 


Congressman Borland. I call your attention to page 23 of the brief. I do 
not know whether you have it there. I want to call attention particularly to 
the fact that the Chester was put on in 1911, and now we are almost to the 
close of the season of 1915, and Col. Deakyne’s report refers to the tonnage of 
1913. I would like to have you briefly analyze that situation and show the 
reasons for the growth of your boat line in that time. 

Mr. Dickey. After the formation of this boat line, as suggested just now, 
our first effort to move freight under the present company was with the 
steamer Chester in 1911. In that year we moved a comparatively small 
amount of freight. In 1913 it had increased to, in round numbers, 10,000 tons; 
in 1914 it had increased to 14,000 tons; and in 1915 it will exceed 30,000 tons. 
27,306 tons having actually been moved by this company by water up to October 
1, 1915, in this year. 

This company has 1 packet, 2 twoboats, and 12 barges, all of which have steel 
hulls and are designed to avoid the dangers of snagging. 

Congressman Borland. Was it necessary for you to develop this type of boat 
for use on this particular line—these steel barges and towboats? 

Mr. Dickey. We simply endeavored to take a step forward and get away 
from the old style of wooden-hull construction, to avoid the fate of the 103 
wooden-hull wrecks which have been definitely located in the Missouri River 
by Government reports. We, therefore, took up the question of the use of steel 
hulls, and that is the only type of vessel that we have built or bought. 

Congressman Borland. Your fleet consists now of steel-hulled barges that are 
safe from snags? 

Mr. Dickey. Reasonably safe from snags. 

Congressman Borlad. And they are operated by towboats? 

Mr. Dickey. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. The old style of boat was what was known as the 
Texas-deck boat, such as the Chester before it was rebuilt? 

Mr. Dickey. Yes; it was the old style we are mostly familiar with; of 
wooden construction. 

Congressman Borland. What efforts did the company put forth, do you 
know, and what money did it expend for the new type of river boats? 

Mr. Dickey. We used a good many thousand dollars of our capital in trying 
to determine what type of boat and power we should use to get the best results 
and to operate in the Missouri River, which in its unimproved condition was 
more or less of a hazardous undertaking. In that way we developed and 
determined to use the steel hull, and we tried the different methods of propul¬ 
sion, both by screw and stern wheel, and we considered the question of the side 
wheel. We investigated and experimented some with the method of making 
and applying power, of making steam with other than coal, which had been 
used for many years, and prior to that by wood, which was used in the early 
days. So we are developing our power with fuel oil and using steam engines. 

Congressman Borland. What condition did you find the terminal facilities 
in when you took hold of the restoration of commerce on the river? 

Mr. Dickey. There were no terminal facilities that we could find, and that 
was one of the early questions that came before us, resulting in agitation 
which you all remember, or at least the local men remember, that caused 
Kansas City, Mo., in 1911, I think it was, to vote $75,000 of bonds, the pro¬ 
ceeds of which were to give Kansas City a municipal terminal joining the rail 
and the river, and that money, or the bulk of it, was expended, Mr. President, in 
building a small-sized, reasonably modern terminal at our water front here, 
giving connection with rail and river and a landing for boats of all kinds, 
whoever operated by. 

Congressman Borland. Have you terminals at East St. Louis? 

Mr. Dickey. This terminal at Kansas City was followed immediately by the 
building of a warehouse, with a reasonable amount of terminal and track 
facilities, in East St. Louis, which was built with the capital of this company. 
We had no assistance from the municipality there. Out of the funds of this 
company we built and maintained on leased land at East St. Louis a warehouse 
with power loading and unloading facilities and with trackage facilities into and 
out of the warehouse. That absorbed a part of our capital. 

Congressman Borland. I am going to ask you, Mr. Dickey, in conclusion, 
what has been the experience of the boat line in the last three seasons in regard 
to its growth of patronage and its hold upon the shipping public? 

Mr. Dickey. The growth of the business has simply been limited to the con¬ 
ditions in which we found the river and the limited amount of floating equip- 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 163 


ment that we had or could get. We were endeavoring to carry out our promise 
to the Chief of Engineers, Gen. Marshall, and his successor, Gen. Bixby, and 
to the committees of the House and Senate with whom we conferred at different 
times, that we would and could use the river. We were of the opinion that the 
use of the river would encourage appropriations by the Federal Government 
and were proceeding to use it even at great loss and at some hazard and with 
a great deal of difficulty in low-water season. 

Congressman Borland. Now, Mr. Dickey, if you will permit me, I want to 
call Mr. Poland and ask him a few questions. 

Mr. Dickey. I would like to augment what I have said, but not at any great 
length. 

Congressman Borland. Very well. 

Mr. Dickey. There happens to be, gentlemen, in this Missouri River Valley, 
in the stretch over which our company operates between here and St. Louis, 
or between here and the mouth of the river, 390 miles, all kinds of available 
bulky, raw material, very little of which has so far been moved by water. The 
bluffs and lands adjacent to the Missouri River between Kansas City and the 
mouth of the river contain vast quantities of coal, fire clays, cement rock, and 
silica sand. You gentlemen remember that at Klondike and at other points 
down the river, as you approached the mouth, there are great white hills stick¬ 
ing out through the water, which are composed of pure white silica sand, avail¬ 
able for glass making and other purposes. In the upper reaches of this stretch 
of the river there is coal on both sides of the river, none of which has to any 
commercial extent been shipped by water. Both sides of the river contain 
deposits of clays suitable for paving-brick manufacture and for clay-working 
mills of all kinds, and cement rock available for the manufacture of cement, to 
say nothing of agricultural products. And those raw materials, and the possi¬ 
bility of their being manufactured into articles of commerce would, in my 
opinion, being interested in that business, knowing something about it and 
having lived here 31 years, form a nucleus for freight to support such a line 
as we have. There would be enough tonnage from this raw material and from 
those few bulky commodities I have mentioned to make it a commercial success 
to move tliatstuff by water; if the river was improved and the channel certain 
and regular, continuing service could be given. There is no question as to the 
amount of patronage we could get; there is no question as to the amount of 
possible tonnage being sufficient to support not only a fleet of 15 vessels, but 
three times that many, did we but once have these banks fixed so that in behind 
them the owners of the land could build levees and develop their properties. 
There would be freight enough to support many boats. 

There is one statement which jis peculiarly terse and pointed, which I think 
will come to you later and be more elaborated on, which makes an impression 
on me, and I think will on this board. There are, roughly speaking, 500,000 
acres of first and second bottom land along the Missouri River between here 
and its mouth, all of which would yield a ton per acre per annum, available for 
freight on this river, or 500,000 tons per annum, were the banks of the river 
fixed and revetted and the lands leveed so that they could be used. 

I omitted to refer to one other raw material of a bulky nature which would 
furnish a great amount of freight for the boat line, and that ii the possibility 
of the shipment of iron ore. 

I think, gentlemen, that is all I would like to say for the present. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Dickey, I believe I will put Mr. Mackie on now. 

Col. Newcomer. Was I correct in understanding you to say that the business 
of the navigation company is still being conducted at a loss, with the increasing 
tonnage? 

Mr. Dickey. It is being conducted, everything considered, at a loss. When 
you take the overhead into consideration with a line doing a limited amount of 
business, increasing, as I have said, from year to year, to about 30,000 tons 
this year. This year, I think, we would have been practically out of the red, 
had it not been that we had the misfortune to lose a barge down at the terminal 
at East St. Louis which had some freight on it. But outside of that mishap, 
this year, with a fair stage of water, and the continuing improvement in the 
channel caused by the work the Government has been doing, because every 
fixed bend helps, we have been able to operate without a loss, with the excep¬ 
tion of this misfortune in losing this barge, which settled on piling and became 
leaky and sank, and that made a loss which will put us in the red again this 
year. Prior to that we operated at a loss each year. 


164 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Have any of the members of the board any further questions to ask? 

Col. Taylor. Do you include interest on capital in that overhead? 

Mr. Dickey. No, we do not; but do include fixed expenses and terminal 
charges at each end in receiving and unloading freight, and we issue bills of 
lading and make rates 20 per cent less than the rail rates. We haul freight 
of all kinds for all people everywhere at one-fifth less than the rail rate, what¬ 
ever that may be, and we give track and warehouse delivery both at Kansas 
City and St. Louis. In other words, if you are a shipper at St. Louis removed 
from the river, we sidetrack to your place of business and we absorb the cost 
of switching within certain restricted limits, and also from your place of busi¬ 
ness to the water front, and load it there and take it to Kansas City and do the 
same thing here, putting it in the car and switching it to dock or warehouse. 
In addition to that we cut the rail rate 20 per cent, so when you ask about the 
overhead expense, I have to mention that. Then, there is the cost of docking 
fees here and a small fee at East St. Louis, and the delivery of the freight; that 
is all included in the overhead, but in no sense is any interest on the investment 
included. 

Senator Reed. Mr. Dickey, in order to get one or two questions in a con¬ 
densed form—in order to get one or two facts in a condensed form—will you 
state now how many boats the company has at the present time on the river, 
and how many barges it has, and what their capacity is? If you have a state¬ 
ment of that you might file it with the board. 

Mr. Dickey. I will file such a statement, Senator, but I have stated that we 
have 15 steel-hull craft, 1 packet boat, 1 passenger boat and freight boat 
combined, 2 towboats, and 12 barges of steel-hull construction, and the figures 
.giving the actual capacity of each I will file with the board. 

Senator Reed. What was the aggregate tonnage you have carried this year? 

Mr. Dickey. Up to October 1, it was 27,306 tons; up to this date, in round 
numbers, about 30,000 tons. 

Senator Reed. How much longer will navigation continue, probably? 

Mr. Dickey. The 15th of November is the time we expect to close. Last year 
we ran a little later than that, up until the first week in December with one 
vessel. 

Senator Reed. What is the fair, reasonable estimate of the total tonnage of 
this year? 

Mr. Dickey. From 30,000 to 32,000 tons. 

Senator Reed. Have you been able to handle all of the freight offered? 

Mr. Dickey. No, sir; at no time this year, either upstream or downstream, 
have we been able to undertake to carry the freight that was offered. 

Senator Reed. You have spoken of carrying freight at a loss. If the river 
had a 6-foot channel from Kansas City to the mouth, so that you could pro¬ 
ceed unobstructedly, what then would be the conditions with reference to op¬ 
erating at a profit or at a loss, as to carrying freight at a loss? 

Mr. Dickey. I did not speak about carrying freight at a loss, Senator. It 
is a fact, however, that at the close of each year, counting our overhead ex¬ 
penses, etc., there has been a loss. 

Senator Reed. Let me put it this way, so that we will not have any possible 
misunderstanding in the record which goes to Congress ultimately for action, 
possibly. You spoke of operating the line at a loss, including in the operating 
•expenses the overhead charges. You have so operated your line upon the 
river with the improvements only partially made? 

Mr. Dickey. Only started as yet. 

Senator Reed. If there was a 6-foot channel, such as contemplated by the 
bill, so that you could operate your boats steadily, what then would be the con¬ 
dition of your company with reference to operating at a profit or loss? 

Mr. Dickey. There would be absolutely no question in my mind as to the 
venture being not only profitable, but helpful to this entire Middle West country. 
The boats would operate at a profit, and I state, as a business man and a 
student of these conditions for all these years, that we would operate at a 
profit; that if we had anything like a stable channel, or 6-foot channel, and 
could give fixed delivery at stated times, we would be swamped with merchan¬ 
dise and could not carry it all, and would operate at a profit. 

Senator Reed. Is it or is it not a fact that the river transportation had 
reached so low an ebb in years past that when you took hold of this project 
you found that wharves were necessary? 

Mr. Dickey. There were none, Senator, anywhere. 

Senator Reed. Has that been a serious handicap? 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 165 


Mr. Dickey. The lack of terminal facilities has been a daily expense and 
a great source of additional cost. 

Senator Reed. State to the board what, if anything, has been done in the 
way of making wharves and terminals? 

Mr. Dickey. Well, as I have already briefly outlined, the city here has built 
a municipal terminal at Kansas City of moderate size; and this company 
had to build one at East St. Louis. There is nothing in the way of a 
terminal between here and St. Louis except the bank where the local boats 
and other boats attempt to land. 

Senator Reed. If these terminals were built at the various points of load¬ 
ing and unloading, not only at the terminals, but along the line, what effect 
would that have with reference to the cost of transporting goods and the 
volume of goods you would receive? 

Mr. Dickey. It would lessen the cost very materially. We keep an accu¬ 
rate tabulation, showing what the handling of merchandise costs, and when 
we have any sort of reasonable facilities we can cut the cost in two of load¬ 
ing and unloading vessels and barges. 

Senator Reed. What, in your opinion—based upon your experience in oper¬ 
ating this line—will result at the intermediate points, as well as at the 
terminals, with reference to docking facilities if the river is improved? 

Mr. Dickey. Just as soon as it is definitely known that this work is per¬ 
manent and is continuously being done, there will be a terminus of some 
kind—an exchange place between river and rail—at every important landing 
between here and St. Louis. That question has already been up; many 
towns have held meetings about it and if we had the facilities now, even with 
the limited water and the troublesome condition of the channel, some of 
those towns would build and operate a terminal or make a start on a terminal. 

Senator Reed. I want to take up another matter, in the briefest possible 
way, which has already been touched upon. You have stated that you started 
with the old type of steamer and that you have now adopted steel barges—a 
different type of boat. Has that experimental stage been a matter of expense? 

Mr. Dicki v. The first experiment made with an old stern-wheel steamer, 
which we fell heir to and did not have to purchase, the converting of it from 
a stern-wheel boat to a screw-propelled boat was an expensive investment 
that cost us some money. But that same type of vessel, when properly de¬ 
signed and built, as is our towboat Scott, has proved a thing of beauty and 
a joy forever, and saves us money every day. 

Senator Reed. I want to bring out the question of whether you have been 
obliged to experiment with boats in order to get the best type and whether 
you feel you have made progress in that matter; and if so, to what extent? 

Mr. Dickey. We certainly did experiment, certainly have benefited by it, 
and certainly have made progress. We have now a comparison by days, 
months, per annum, and per ton-mile between the stem-wheel propelled boat 
and the screw-propelled boat moving freight, and -we would be glad to file 
a statement with this board. 

Chairman Black. We would be glad to have you do so. 

Senator Reed. Did you have difficulty at first, and for a long time because 
the river was imperfectly lighted—because there were insufficient lights by 
which you could navigate the stream? 

Mr. Dickey. We did have a very great deal of trouble on account of the 
lack of lights and day signals, but that has been, in a measure, removed 
because in the last two or three years the river has had lights and day marks 
put upon it that have helped considerably. 

Senator Reid. That was one of the obstacles? _ 

Mr. Dickey. Yes, sir; and the snags in the river; but the greatest difficulty 
of all is the separating of the water into numerous channels and not being 
confined into one body—so that it is difficult to tell where the best water is— 
so that we lose time. 

Senator Reed. But the absence of lights has been one of your difficulties? 

Mr. Dickey. Yes. 

Senator Reed. Has it been your experience that just in proportion as these 
difficulties of various kinds have been removed you have been better able to 
navigate the river and do so at less cost? 

Mr. Dickey. The records of the company, and the supervision we keep over 
that, show that just as plainly as can be. Each year and each month in the 
year we keep doing a little better as the river is improved and the bad 
bends attended to. As we get further into the work we are improving the 


166 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


service, and have now gotten down to trips from St. Louis to Kansas City, 
upstream, in SO hours, and round trips in 5 days with regularity. 

Senator Reed. Have you any doubt now—I ask you as an expert from 
your experience to state to the board—whatever that if this river improvement 
is carried on, as provided in the act of Congress, that the river can be navi¬ 
gated at a profit? 

Mr. Dickey. I have no doubt of that whatever. 

Senator Reed. And at rates 20 per cent below the present railroad rates? 

Mr. Dickey. 1 have no doubt of it whatever; and I think still further re¬ 
ductions in rates would still be profitable—considerable further reductions. 

Senator Reed. If your rates are thus still further reduced, what, in your 
opinion, will be the volume of freight that can be carried when the improvement 
is completed? 

Chairman Black. Can be or will be? 

Senator Reed. I will say, will be carried when the improvement is completed. 

Mr. Dickey. I can not state that as an expert, because I am a business man 
devoting my time to this for the community; but I think if we had a 6-foot 
channel and could operate eight or nine months in the year on the river, with 
the disposition of the people in this district to use the river, the volume of 
freight tendered and carried would be enormous. It is estimated that the river 
would be the equivalent in carrying capacity of 100 double-track lines of 
railroad. 

Chairman Black. You have brought out some information we wanted to get 
very much, and I would be very glad to have Mr. Dickey furnish us with the 
information that he said he had in his office as to cost, the progressively de¬ 
creasing cost of operation with the increasing tonnage and improvement of the 
river. 

Mr. Dickey. I shall be glad to file that statement with you. 

Chairman Black. Furthermore, we would like to have definite information 
given us concerning the relative cost of movement by screw-propelled and stern- 
wheel-propelled boats. 

Mr. Dickey. We have that and can give it to you. I will state in general, as 
a forerunner of what we will file with you. that there is apparently very little 
difference in the per ton-mile cost of freight moving in screw-propelled and 
stern-wheel boats. There is some little advantage in speed one way and some 
little advantage in tonnage another way. 

Senator Reed. And some saving in labor by reason of the application of fuel 
oil instead of coal—an enormous saving in that respect, and saving in time? 
You have stated that? 

Mr. Dickey. Yes; and I have the figures on that. 

Senator Reed. There were one or two more questions I wanted to ask. 

Congressman Borland. We have a witness here who keeps the books of the 
company, of whom I had designed to ask these very questions—the secretary of 
the company. 

Mr. Dickey. I think it would be fair to state that our secretary, who devotes 
his entire time to those matters, is here to testify in regard to that. 

Congressman Borland. So that these questions may not be duplicated. 

Senator Reed. I do not intend to go into that and have not done so. I 
wanted to ask Mr. Dickey another question suggested by Judge Bland. If the 
river were improved as contemplated in this act of Congress, what then would 
be the situation with reference to the kind of service you could give between 
Kansas City and St. Louis? 

Mr. Dickey. There would be no question about the improvement of the 
service and its continuous regularity. We could move freight from Kansas City 
to St. Louis regularly and continuously 8 and possibly or 9 months in the 
year, in 72 hours upstream, and make the round trip regularly in 5 days. 

Senator Reed. Would that be partly because you could then run at night, 
which you can not do now? 

Mr. Dickey. That would be partly because of the opportunity to operate all 
night, and we now only operate part of the night in certain stretches of the 
river which have been improved. We can not operate at all at night Upstream, 
and of course not downstream in stretches of the river that have not been 
improved. 

Chairman Black. Can you state to the board the number of hours actually 
taken in the delivery of freight between St. Louis and Kansas City by rail at 
the present time? 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 1G7 

Mr. Dickey. I could not answer that except as a purchaser of commodities 
and as an occasional receiver of rail freight—not very much of it, because I am 
not a jobber but a manufacturer. Rut other witnesses here can tell you just 
how long it takes to bring freight from St. Louis to Kansas City regularly. 

Chairman Black. I would like to have that definitely stated. 

< ol. Winslow. You stated that November 15 is the average end of the 
season. What is the beginning of the season? 

Mr. Dickey. We will give the actual records of that when our secretary, Mr. 
Mackie, comes before the board, but it is the end of February or early in 
March ; but last year we ran up until December and got into a little trouble. 

Col. Riddle. W T as that on account of the ice? 

Mr. Dickey. That principally. The ice first interferes with it in the fall and 
does in the spring—principally in the fall. The first heavy frost in the upper 
regions of the Missouri River and its tributaries stops the flow of water and our 
water falls very rapidly. 

Col. Newcomer. You stated that the stern-wheel boat and the screw-propelled 
boat carry tonnage for about the same cost? 

Mr. Dickey. Relatively the same; but we will give the figures for one or two 
years. 

Col. Newcomer. Are there any figures that show a marked superiority of one 
type over the other? 

Mr. Dickey. Yes, sir; a very marked superiority of the screw type. Now, as 
to the tunnel type, the only use of the tunnel is so that the screw will not be 
so low as to hit the bottom and catch snags; but it is our opinion that properly 
designed steel hulls with screw propellers in these swift waters of the Missouri, 
and in these shallow waters, will be the best with the least cost finally, because 
the boat does not squat and have a tendency to pull the water out from under 
if with the screw propeller as with the stern wheel ; and when we get 4 feet of 
water with a boat that draws 3$, she labors and the speed slows down. We do 
not find such a tendency to squat with the screw-propelled boat as with the 
stern-wheel boat. 

Col. Taylor. You spoke of having more freight offered than you were able to 
carry; have you made arrangements to increase your capacity next year? 

Mr. Dickey. We have. We have on our boards at the office now, designed 
by our architect, who is a graduate of the Naval Artillery School of Berlin, 
plans for a stern-wheel towboat and a screw-propelled towboat; and the mat¬ 
ter has been before our board of directors, and was going to be acted upon when 
this report which is now being considered by you gentlemen, came up and 
threw us all in an uproar. 

Col. Taylor. You have not made the purchase yet? 

Mr. Dickey. We have not made the purchase of that boat, but are up to it. 

Col. Taylor. Have you made arrangements for additional barges? 

Mr. Dickey. We did this year put on four additional small barges that have 
been a help in securing freight. 

Col. Taylor. You do not expect to put on any others next year? 

Mr. Dickey. No; we will not put on any other barges next year, because we 
have barge capacity enough for next year. What we need now is an increase of 
our towing capacity. 

(’ol. Winslow. You mentioned the large number of stockholders in your com¬ 
pany? 

Mr. Dickey. Yes, sir. 

Col. Winslow. Are they scattered among merchants and others? 

Mr. Dickey. AVe have over 4.200 shareholders, principally in Kansas City, 
Mo., and in Kansas City, Kans., bankers, banks themselves, merchants, manu¬ 
facturers, business men. Many of them are small subscribers in amounts of 
$1, $5, and $10, many of them are employees, and merchants in a minor way in 
this locality, and we have many subscribers in small sums in the towns up and 
down the river. One of the very first subscriptions we received when this 
question was agitated came in by mail from Lexington for $500; wherever the 
spirit of Kansas City's business influence was felt and the newspapers circu¬ 
lated. They were of the greatest aid in getting this enterprise under way. 

Col. Winslow. The interest in the line is quite widespread? 

Mr. Dickey. Very much so; and I am sorry to say that it will never be 
possible for you gentlemen, in one or two days, no matter what you do, to 
catch the spirit of the people of this valley in the question of their deep in¬ 
terest in this line and the improvement of that river. You would have to 
live out here a while and be in this atmosphere and feel the deep concern we 


168 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


all have in it; it would not be possible for you to gather it in a few days or in 
a public hearing. 

Col. Taylor. What proportion of your paid-up capital has been used in the 
purchase of boats? 

Mr. Dickey. I will ask Mr. Mackie to answer that technically when he comes 
on, but, as I have said, we have collected over $1,000,000 in cash, besides the 
interest on the deferred payments; and we have in round numbers about 
$300,000 either on hand or in freight due us from concerns. Roughly, between 
$280,000 and $300,000 of that capital is waiting investment until the day when 
we know what we can best use in the way of facilities and until the day we feel 
certain that these bad places in the river will be improved and until we feel 
sure we can get up and down. 

Col. Taylor. You have used something like $700,000 or $S00,000 cash? 

Mr. Dickey. Yes; we have actually expended that much. 

Chairman Black. We are much obliged to you, Mr. Dickey. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Mackie, will you take the stand? 

A. W. Mackie, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. You are the secretary of the Kansas City Missouri 
River Navigation Co.? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir; I am assistant to Mr. Dickey, as manager. 

Congressman Borland. How long have you been connected with the com¬ 
pany? 

Mr. Mackie. Since the beginning of the organization, in April, 1909. 

Congressman Borland. Are you familiar with the fleet of boats now on the 
river, their capacity and draft, and the times at which they were acquired by the 
company ? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. I wish you would detail to the board the fleet now 
on the river, the draft of the boats, their tonnage capacity, and the time in 
which you have acquired them. 

Mr. Mackie. In 1910 we fell heir to a Missouri River packet with a steel 
hull from a former organization which had some obligations it could not pay, 
and we paid the obligations and took the steamer with the idea of getting the 
steamer in service in 1911, our delegates who went to Washington having made 
the statement to Congress and to the Rivers and Harbors Committee of the 
House that we would have that service on the river in 1911. We did put that 
one boat in service in 1911. It is a steel-hull packet and passenger boat, not 
designed for the Missouri River service, of a type more long and narrow— 
“greyhound,” commonly called—which has not the buoyancy or carrying 
capacity desirable for a shallow-water boat. That boat was originally a stern- 
wheel, and in our efforts to improve operating costs and carrying costs our 
engineer prevailed upon us to convert it into a twin-screw tunnel steamer, which 
was done, and at considerable expense because of the absence of a desirable 
shipyard. 

Mr. Dickey. First designed as a triple-screw boat. 

Mr. Mackie. First designed as a triple-screw tunnel boat, but which has been 
used only as a twin-screw since the first trip. That boat was operated in 1911, 
and a small tonnage was carried in five trips. Our season closed along in 
October that year because of the low water and the too deep draft of that 
particular steamer. 

Chairman Black. What was her draft? 

Mr. Mackie. Her draft light was 31 feet, and she carried 300 tons on feet. 
In 1911 we did not have an average of 5J feet. As a matter of fact, we did 
well to carry 100 tons of freight. The low water set in in September. 

Congressman Borland. The Chester was of the old type of boat that had 
been used on the river? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. A Texas-deck packet boat? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Where the load was carried on the deck and loaded 
and unloaded by hand? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes. That was the type of boat that had been used on the 
Mississippi River, and she was originally built for the Mississippi River. 

Congressman Borland. Now, the fact of the matter is that that boat was not 
adapted to such a river and not properly adapted to even an improved river? 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 169 


Mr. Mackie. We found it unsatisfactory for the Missouri River in the condi¬ 
tion in which we found the river. It could have, and did on a few trips in 
the following years, show a profit when there was high water, hut not sufficient 
profit to justify the building of any more boats of that kind. 

Meanwhile, from the operation of that boat, wg determined upon the towboat 
and barge type as the most suitable type. In a search of inland waters for 
boats available for purchase and barges available for purchase we wanted, 
first, steel hulls, of which there were very few. None were found entirely 
suited for the Missouri River as we then understood the necessities of the 
river. We were able to purchase and did purchase in the fall of 1911 a twin- 
screw boat, the A. M. Scott, which was designed for shallow water, designed 
to draw 3 feet, and not a freight carrier, but merely a towboat. We purchased 
that same season a large steel-hull barge, on which we erected a steel cargo 
box, and got it to Kansas City with the steamer Scott to begin the service in 
the spring of 1912. In the year 1912 we also purchased two other steamboat 
hulls, in order to get something on the river quickly, in order to increase our 
tonnage quickly, and, as our directors felt, to keep our promise with Washing¬ 
ton that we would carry tonnage and move freight on the river. The former 
steamboat hulls purchased for barges, you can probably understand, were not 
entirely suited to the river. We took what we could get. 

We then began designing barges specially suited to the Missouri River and 
contracted for two 1,000-ton barges. By that I mean 1,000 tons capacity on 
0 feet, or approximately 200 tons per foot of immersion, drawing 18 inches 
light; and we put those in service on the Missouri River with the towboat 
Scott. In 1912 we also purchased a stern-wheel steamer of the ordinary high- 
pressure type burning coal. That was brought into the river and used to tow 
one of the small hulls which had been converted into a barge—small steamboat 
hulls. We soon learned that a small tonnage on the Missouri River, operating 
conditions as they were then, with the strong current and the long drive from 
St. Louis uphill—that small tonnage would not pay. We were fortunate in 
being able to increase the power of that stern-wheel towboat from 137 horse¬ 
power to G20 horsepower and still maintain 3-foot draft. We were using, of 
course, fuel oil on that and on all our towboats by that time. We meanwhile, 
while increasing the towing capacity of this steamer, placed an order for three 
specially designed cargo-box barges for the Missouri River. We had learned 
that the 1,000-ton type of barge was a little bit larger than might be most 
economically used on the river in the present condition of the improvements, 
and these three additional barges were 1 ordered, with a capacity of GOO tons oil 
6-foot immersion, or running about 135 tons per foot of immersion. 

We had also learned from operation that the class of freight offered us for 
movement upstream was of such bulkiness that it would be impossible to load 
1,000 tons in a 1,000-ton barge with a cargo house such as we had, 12 feet high 
and covering practically the whole deck of the boat; and the last three barges 
ordered, 600-ton capacity, were constructed of a type calculated to hav.e a great 
deal more cargo-carrying space inside of the cargo house. That brought us up 
to the fall of 1911, when we placed a contract for four additional steel barges, 
which we call lighters. They are built of steel, but without cargo houses. 
There is freight offered us of a class that does not require housing inside of a 
steel house—a considerable amount. In the high-water season we calculated to 
use those flats, and do use them for the movement of structural steel and such 
classes of freight that do not require particular protection from the weather. 
We also use those barges, and intended to use them, and just now are begin¬ 
ning to use them, as lighters. By that I mean a small barge which can be 
carried, without a great deal of expenditure of power, with the tow of merchan¬ 
dise, and when an unexpected shallow place develops in the channel enough 
freight may be lightered off the merchandise barge to allow the barge to pass 
over the shallow place. There are usually only one to three shallow spots in 
the river that regulate the load of the whole river, and we realize that if we 
can carry a better load and a larger load the whole distance of the river by the 
mere process of lightering over one or two shallow crossings it will he to our 
profit. Those four steel lighters are 120 feet long, 20 feet wide, and five feet 
deep, drawing 10 inches of water without cargo, and having eight water-tight 
compartments; were built in Kansas City at the mouth of the Kansas River by 
Kansas City labor and by a Kansas City firm, and at a price which was less 
than other shipyards were willing to bid. They were specially designed, how¬ 
ever, for the particular purpose, and designed with the idea of cheap building.. 
Those barges are in service now, and since they have been put in service, like 


170 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


anything new in transportation, many uses are found for them which were not 
originally anticipated. For instance, there is a great production of apples along 
the Missouri River that move in barrels to storage and to market. Those have 
been moving out of certain districts by rail to St. Louis, Chicago, Memphis, and 
elsewhere; and we have been -able to secure for these flat barges, by dropping 
a barge at an apple-picking landing or town and going on and leaving it, we 
have been able to secure a great deal of tonnage which is loaded by the shipper 
just as he would load a box car on a switch track; and the next tow passing 
up or down, depending on the movement of those particular apples, picks up 
that barge in connection with the regular tow and moves it through to destina¬ 
tion. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Mackie, your principal purpose, then, is to give 
service to those intermediate towns by dropping the barge for loading these 
apples, or whatever the freight may be, to be picked up by the next towboat that 
may be coming up or down? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir; that is it. 

Congressman Borland. In that way can you give service to intermediate 
points for shipment similar to that given by railways? 

Mr. Mackie. We have given service with those barges for the shipment of 
live stock, grain, apples, as I have just stated, and hay, so far. 

Congressman Borland. Originally those barges were intended for lighters in 
the river? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir; and these other services have developed. 

Congressman Borland. I believe you have covered the point that you first 
began building barges of larger capacity and gradually have been compelled to 
put on barges of smaller capacity on account of shallow places in the river? 

Mr. Mackie. I would like to say that that change to the smaller barge has 
been based on our experience and what in our judgment would be the most eco¬ 
nomical for the river service. 

Congressman Borland. How does that affect the cost of handling the freight? 
Is it more economical to handle freight in large barges fully loaded than with 
barges partially loaded or small barges? 

Mr. Mackie. That is a difficult question to answer, yes or no. Generally 
speaking, a large-capacity barge is desirable. There are conditions under 
which, with a deep channel—a 6-foot channel, I mean, because we think that is 
deep, in the Missouri—there are conditions under which a small barge could be 
profitably used also. Undoubtedly, when we get our channel improved perma¬ 
nently, we will be using small and large barges; and the big tonnage moving 
through from points like New Orleans, for instance, to Kansas City, will move 
in 1,000 to 1,500 ton barges, and shorter distances the tonnage handled may 
move in smaller barges. 

I might say, on that, that we are sometimes offered, say, 400 tons of freight 
from a given shipper at a given point. We are repeatedly offered freight on the 
Ohio River. We do not run on the Ohio, but sometimes we go into the Ohio 
for reasons of dockage or repair, or something of that kind; we have gone there 
and we have had barges built on the Ohio, at Ambridge, near Pittsburgh, and 
there was no trouble in loading those barges. And if a man offered us, say, 400 
tons from, say, Paducah, Ky., and we were going to some place near there, for 
example, we might be able to set out .a 600-ton barge and let him load his 400 
tons in it, giving him a through water haul to Kansas City. We have done 
that some five or six times. And we are to-day offered three barge loads by the 
Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Co., of Louisville, Ky., consisting of "bath¬ 
tubs and fixtures, if we will take them—if we will come that far for them. We 
can not go light, of course, to Louisville to bring out a load, if we had no other 
reason for going. We know that we must have freight both ways to profitably 
operate, and virtually have freight both ways on the Missouri River under the 
present condition. 

Congressman Borland. What has been the policy of the company in expend¬ 
ing its capital in the building of barges and in regard to building in advance of 
the permanent improvement of the river? 

Mr. Mackie. Well, I do not suppose I will be violating any confidence when 
I tell you that my board of directors, or the board to which I have to 
answer, is hard-headed. It is not an easy problem to get an appropriation out 
of that board. In other words, we have to make a show-down and then argue 
pretty strongly for equipment, because the board feels it a duty to preserve 
and conserve the capital of the company so as to be able to build boats of a 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 171 


type that will be most satisfactory for use and most economical and with the 
biggest power when we get a little more depth of water. 

I might say that from my own standpoint it has been somewhat of a dis¬ 
appointment not to be able to put on some larger-power boats—much larger- 
power boats—by this time. We had hoped by 1915 we could have another or 
possibly two additional power boats. I would like to digress just a moment or 
two on that for the benefit of the board. 

I think all the members of this board will understand that to operate a 
300-horsepower towboat there are certain limitations in the matter of tonnage 
that you can take. We figure generally on the Missouri Itiver that we can 
move upstream at merchandise speed—that is to say, 5 miles an hour or there¬ 
abouts—1 ton of freight per horsepower. A 600-liorsepower boat will move 
practically twice the freight, and the crew cost is no greater on a 600-horse¬ 
power boat than on a 300-horsepower towboat. We hope to increase our 
power boats from 600 to 1.000 horsepower and next to 1,500 horsepower. The 
law requires, and the regulations of the Department of Commerce require, a 
certain number of licensed men. They are the men who draw the salaries. 
There are certain men necessary to operate a boat, whether it be 300 horse¬ 
power or 1,500 horsepower; and practically the only difference in the cost be¬ 
tween the operating of the larger power boat and the smaller power boat is the 
fuel cost. 

Congressman Borland. How much time is involved now in the upstream and 
downstream trip? 

Mr. Mackie. We figure our upstream trip at 100 expired hours under the 
present condition. AVe have made trips this year in SO hours upstream, run¬ 
ning continuously night and day. r Phe water has been unexpectedly high, and 
our men are becoming much more familiar with the Missouri River operating 
conditions, and some of the men have the spirit which results in continuous 
work to get through and make time. Ordinarily our time of delivery from St. 
Louis in 100 hours. 

Congressman Borland. How much of that is spent in straight running and 
how much by de 1 iys caused by bad crossings? 

Mr. Mackie. It is very difficult to give you a figure as to delays on account 
of b d crossings. In the fall of the year we can not maintain and do not 
maintain in low water or in bad season the 100-liour service from St. Louis; 
bm that is the average time. There are times when the upstream trip consumes 
seven and sometimes nine days, and the difference between the four and a half 
days and the nine days is usually the time spent on sand bars or occasional 
delays or loss of a few hours because at this season of the year of fogs on 
the river which prohibit running at night. 

Chairman Black. At about how many points do you find those delays? You 
spoke of from one to three. 

Mr. Mackie. Well. Mr. President, they are not any two months in the same 
place. They are at uncertain points. For instance, in the 1914 season our low- 
water period began in July—unusually early—and it was not very long until 
we developed a crossing at St. Charles, Mo., down at the lower end of the 
river—a very, very bad crossing that limited our loading for the whole stretch 
of the river; and there perhaps we suffered more delay and loss of time than 
at any other one point. And that can be carried on further by way of illus¬ 
tration. One boat was delayed at St. Charles going down, and another boat 
came down with a barge loaded with flour, and with the two boats together, and 
transferring, we lost three days. Then we had another barge loaded at St. 
Louis and another partly loaded to come upstream, and we started the towboat 
A. M. Scott in regular order back to Kansas City. She came back to the same 
crossing and the channel through which she had made the crossing in an 
irregular and unexpected circle or half circle, the water not running in that di¬ 
rection at all; but there being the deepest water which we found by sounding, 
but in the meantime the channel had changed, and she went aground; and the 
1st of December was approaching, and the cold weather coming from the north, 
and our officers got very uneasy about her, of course. 

Finally she got through the crossing, but that delay at that crossing resulted 
in our having a towboat and barge loaded with merchandise, mostly first-class 
freight on that particular trip, caught in the ice below Jefferson City; and 
fortunately Uncle Sam had done a little work near where we were caught, and 
we were able to get in below a dike. Of course we lost money on that ac¬ 
count, and that loss was chargeable to the delay at the narrow crossing. 


172 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


That is only one example, and there are many examples of loss in our opera¬ 
tions that are traceable back to the same difficulty of operation. 

Congressman Borland. You are speaking of eliminating the delays of load¬ 
ing and unloading at intermediate points by dropping an empty barge and 
letting the power boat proceed. 

Mr. Mackie. As quickly as possible after we adopted the power boat and 
barge system we secured enough barges to have barges loading and discharg¬ 
ing at either terminal while other barges were underway, and also had enough 
barges to sometimes be able to drop a large barge at an interior point where, 
say, there were 10,000 bags of wheat or something of that kind to be loaded 
at one time, and we were thus able to get that loaded without delay to the 
towboat. 

Congressman Borland. Now I am going to call attention to the picture oppo¬ 
site or following page 143 in the brief, and ask you to give the board a descrip¬ 
tion of that barge as shown there. 

Mr. Mackie. Oh, I see; the interior of the barge. Is that the picture? 

Congressman Borland. Yes; that is the one. Now, what sized barge is that? 

Mr. Mackie. That is one of the 1,000-ton-cargo box barges. It has, as you 
see, corrugated-iron sides, and the corrugations in this picture are on the 
partition. Inside of the barge there are three of those partitions with steel 
doors, making four fireproof compartments in a fireproof barge. I might say, 
in regard to fireproofing of our equipment, to give you an illustration of how 
secure we feel as to their being fireproof, that when this barge of which you 
see the picture of its interior, which was brought here from Pittsburgh, ar¬ 
rived we offered a prize to anyone who could set the barge on fire. We had 
quite an attendance at the municipal wharf on her arrival, but nobody at¬ 
tempted, to set it on fire. The barge itself is absolutely fireproof, as are all of 
our barges. It is equipped with a cargo house of steel, and we keep that cargo 
house locked from terminal to terminal and allow no one inside of the cargo 
house except in loading and unloading. 

Congressman Borland. You carry your own marine insurance? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes; we have. 

Congressman Borland. You have absorbed the marine insurance? 

Mr. Mackie. We have, since the operation of this company, carried our own 
marine insurance. 

Congressman Borland. That is, you pay all losses yourself? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir; for the reason that marine insurance as originally 
quoted us—at first there were no quotations and it was not possible to get any, 
because the Missouri River was considered extra hazardous because of so 
many wooden hulls in the bottom of the river between here and St. Louis, and 
it was impossible to get a rate in 1911. In 1912 we were offered a rate which 
we considered entirely out of line. In 1913 it was slightly lower; in 1914 also 
slightly lower; and again in 1915 also slightly lower. There was some marine 
insurance written this year at the rate of one-tenth of 1 per cent for flour. 
That was the Great Lakes rate; but we were not able to get insurance at that 
rate to apply to all our commodities, or all our freight. If we could, we would 
possibly have placed insurance with them; but the tendency among insurance 
underwriters is to recognize our equipment as being of a class that is entitled 
to a lower rating than previously given inland rivers of the country, and we 
now have quoted us lower rates than are quoted on the Mississippi and Ohio 
Rivers, but still we think they are a little bit excessive. 

Congressman Borland. Is it a fact that your rates now include, in practical 
operation, the marine insurance? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. That is, the rate is 80 per cent of the net rate? 

Mr. Mackie. Eighty per cent of the ra*e, and that includes marine insurance 
and carrying charges, and on carloads, where delivered by switching, the 
absorption of the switching charges. 

Congressman Borland. Now, is this barge line operated at the present in 
such a way that freight can be transferred from it to rail carriers and from 
rail carriers to the barge at the terminal points? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes; a big volume of our business moves and is exchange busi¬ 
ness between rail and water, both at this end and at the other end of the line. 

Congressman Borland. You absorb the switching charges between fhe shipper 
on the sidetrack in Kansas City and in St. Louis and your wharf? 

Mr. Mackie. We do in certain prescribed limits. We absorb in Kansas City 
on delivery or receipt of carloads of freight up to and including $9 per car. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 173 


There are a few places where it is a little bit higher, and there the shipper 
pays all over the $9. 

Congressman Borland. So your rates include not only absorption of marine 
insurance but absorption of switching charges at the terminal up to $9 a car? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir. I do not mean by that that each car costs us $9 to 
switch, but that is the maximum. 

Congressman Borland. Oh, no; that is the maximum. 

Mr. Mackie. That is the maximum. 

Congressman Borland. Now, I understand that this larger power boat you 
have been talking of, which your board of directors had under consideration, 
will increase your capacity how much? 

Mr. Mackie. The two boats now in service have an indicated horsepower 
■of GOO and 620 horsepower, respectively; and our naval architect has been able 
to design a boat with 1,000 horsepower on 3-foot draft, increasing our horse¬ 
power, therefore, by 400, and practically doubling our freight-carrying capacity; 
that is, as we already have the barges, and this one towboat will do almost 
•double the amount of work that a 600-horsepower towboat will do under the 
present conditions. 

Congressman Borland. What is the present prospect in regard to the use 
of the rivers by farmers and producers who are making their own shipments 
at way points? 

Mr. Mackie. We have been getting very encouraging support from the farm¬ 
ers, particularly, of course, in the bottom lands. The farmer, like any other 
shipper, is looking to his own best interest, and where he can ship by river and 
save himself some money and save himself the haul he will do it; and when he 
learns that he can ship by river direct from his farm to the central market 
and get the market price he is generally disposed to do that. The farmers 
are shipping to-day, and have been since we began our service, into St. Louis 
and into Kansas City, and selling direct where they never had done so before. 
Always before that time they had sold in the local market to the local mill or 
to their local buyers. And there are also some local buyers who have estab¬ 
lished business in grain buying, for instance, in the interior, who are patronizing 
our line very extensively and profitably for freight moving to St. Louis or 
Kansas City. 

Congressman Borland. Isn't it a fact that some organizations of farmers are 
now putting up warehouses for the delivery of their‘freight? 

Mr. Mackie. Two years ago there was a warehouse built near Waverly 
Landing. The first warehouse was built at Fullers Landing, opposite Waverly, 
by some farmers and they accumulate their freight there; and the inbound 
freight or freight consigned to the farmers was received at that warehouse. 
•There is one community warehouse under way now—that is, we have been in¬ 
formed that it is to he built, and have been asked what location on the river 
bank in that prescribed limit would best suit us. 

Congressman Borland. This river bottom land, especially that reclaimed 
land along the river, is practically tributary in that way to the commercial 
traffic on the river. 

Mr. Mackie. Y r es, sir; we call that bottom land our meat. That is our 
freight. 

Congressman Borland. That is your local business? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir. I might say for the benefit of the engineers, if they 
<lo not already know it, the farmers continually carry little memorandum books 
in their pockets, and we have found to our surprise and gratification that in 
those little memorandum books notes have been taken by the farmers where 
they have figured out the cost of hauling by their wagons from the farm to the 
nearest station, and also what it costs to haul to the river where there is a river 
landing; and that also enters into their judgment or their determination as 
to whether they will ship by water or by rail. 

Congressman Borland. Now, one point I want to bring out in that connec¬ 
tion—that reclaimed land or land protected from overflow and erosion by the 
improved channel becomes immediately tributary in a commercial way to the 
movement there, does it not? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. What has been your experience in regard to growth 
of popularity of the boat line among the merchants and shippers of Kansas 
City and St. Louis as the conditions of service have improved? 

Mr. Mackie. Well, first, I think it may be generally recognized that to estab¬ 
lish a transportation line over a course and by a method which had been in 


174 MISSOURI RIVER PROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


disuse some 20 or 30 years was necessarily a difficult process. First, traffic, 
men generally employed by shipping houses are trained along, I might say, 
railway lines. They know railway rates from districts and into districts 
where their commerce moves, and when a carload of freight is ordered and 
the traffic man has the routing of it lie immediately, without consulting any 
tables or books, knows by what railway lines he wishes to route his freight. 

Now, to have him include the Missouri River line in his routing required 
keeping the Missouri River line before him; and no matter how friendly a traffic 
man might be, many and many a car has gotten away from the river line that 
was intended to come to it or would have come to it except for the gentleman’s 
familiarity with the railway line. But, however, in five years’ time that con¬ 
dition of things is being more or less ironed out, and more people in traffic 
lines to-day who are paid salaries as traffic men think of the boat line and know 
about its advantageous rate and efficiency and its method of payment of claims 
than ever before; and it is a steadily increasing process from year to year. 
Further than that, there are some heads of houses that have to be convinced; 
and when the head of a house is convinced and passes the word down to the 
traffic man, I am sorry to say he does not always follow the advice of the head 
of the house; but those conditions are being ironed out. 

Col. Abbot. Isn't there a question comes in there, now, of your not being able 
to carry all the freight offered, and that makes slower progress in the devel¬ 
oping of your carrying trade? 

Mr. Mackie. Well, Col. Abbot, I would say that there are not so many traffic 
men in Kansas City, not so many big houses that have big tonnage, but what 
a live orgazination can keep in touch with the traffic men. And as proof of 
that we have one house here which is a large shipper from the East of pianos 
and musical instruments by water—all high-class freight. We might be ac¬ 
cused of giving them a little special service in order to get their business; but 
I submit that we do not. We try to treat everybody alike. They ship several 
carloads at a time routed from a certain district of our country, and their 
traffic man will telephone our Mr. Poland and say, “ We have five cars of pianos 
coming your way, and we are going to need a few of those right away. There¬ 
fore, we would like to have you divert one car.” And we will do this because 
we are glad to have the four and divert the one. Now, that firm does not 
hesitate to route all its business over our line for fear that we will not be able 
to take care of them, because if they want a car diverted we do that, and 
they would have no more to pay in freight charges than if they had routed 
it all-rail in the first place, because the rates break on St. Louis. 

Congressman Borland. I think Col. Abbot means to ask you whether the fact 
that you have not been able to accept all the freight offered has not had a 
tendency to discourage the growth of your business. 

Mr. Mackie. I think it has. 

Congressman Borland. And that as fast as you are in a position to increase 
the amount of your carrying capacity you will be in a position to ask for more 
freight. 

Mr. Mackie. That is demonstrated in this way, by the ability to carry more 
freight, the houses that patronized us last year have very materially increased 
their patronage this year; and in addition, we have new shippers. 

Col. Abbot. You made one other little statement there, as I understood, that 
the putting on of this new boat of 1,000 horsepower would practically double 
your present capacity when you already have two boats of 000 horsepower each. 

Mr. Mackie. We have 1,200 horsepower as it is; and I think you will under¬ 
stand that the division of horsepower up into many units totaling the same as 
the one unit would not have the same towing capacity. 

Col. Abbot. On the other hand though, where you want to do any local busi¬ 
ness, then you have got to utilize your smaller equipment, because in that 
business you can not get the cargoes and so the big boats will be put on the 
through service. 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir. 

Col. Abbot. And the little boats on the local service—intermediate service? 

Mr. Mackie. Well, by taking care of the local business with some of these 
fiats, we are not obliged to hold the towboats off the through business. 

Col. Abbot. But you would put the small boats in the small business or local 
business and have all the big ones run through service? 

Mr. Mackie. Well, I think it might be found profitable to let a big towboat 
pick up one of these flats, if you realize that a 120 by 20 boat properly built 
and properly designed does not require much power to push through the water,. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 175 


and if you realize that a man can stand on the deck of it and take a 1-inch 
line in his hand and throw it over a standard in passing, you will see that we 
would not lose much time in picking up one of these flats, and it would he profit¬ 
able in the interests of prompt service to move the barge as quickly as possible 
after it is loaded. 

Col. Abbot. That was what I wanted, that you should give a little explana¬ 
tion of just why it would actually double your capacity. 

Mr. Mackie. Well, there is another reason than that. The capacity this 
year was based on the operation of the two towboats and eight barges, because 
the other four fiats we are just building here along through the season, one at 
a time this summer. Now, as 1 have explained, the flats have developed a 
tonnage for us that we did not anticipate. Now, we have those for next year in 
addition to our new towboat which we hope to have very soon. 

Col. Winsow. When you speak of this local freight that you pick up. does 
most of that go to St. Louis or does much of it come up this way? 

Mr. Mackie. The majority of the freight, such as grain and live stock, goes 
to St. Louis. 

Col. Winslow. And the larger part of the tonnage you get where—in the 
lower part of the river? 

Mr. Mackie. No, sir; it is not. We get more tonnage in the upper part of 
the river from the farm landings than in the lower part of it, and the upper 
part of the river seems to trade with Kansas City. 

Col. Winslow. They get their supplies from Kansas City? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir. 

Col. Winslow. And send their produce to St. Louis? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes. We had only 10 days ago two carloads of brick to move 
to an interior town, Miami, and also some local shipments of foodstuffs for 
Miami. We put the two cars of brick and all the local stuff on a flat and took 
it down to Miami and will load apples back; and in dropping that the towboat 
lost exactly three minutes’ time—dropping that flat; and the local man there 
representing us will deliver the freight. That same flat is loading back now 
with apples. 

Col. Newcomer. Do you interchange freight with the railways on through 
bills of lading? 

Mr. Mackie. We do on eastbound grain and grain products and flour for ex¬ 
port. We are in the position of having filed voluntarily, if you please, a tariff 
with the Interstate Commerce Commission naming through rates from Kansas 
City to the seaboard. In that case we reduced the rate to the local consignee 
by 20 per cent of the prorate; that is, 20 per cent of the division over which 
we operate. That is to say, if the division on a 24-cent grain-products rate to 
the seaboard were 15 cents up to the Mississippi River and 9 cents Mississippi 
River to Kansas City, then our differential would be 20 per cent off the 9 cents, 
or 1.8 cents, leaving 7.2 cents, which added to the 15 cents, would make 22.2 
cents. 

Col. Flagler. Do your boats go into the Ohio for any purpose except to bring 
down new boats and barges? 

Mr. Mackie. Well, we have been in the Ohio twice to get marine ways to pull 
out for repairs. They are sadly lacking in that on the Missouri River, although 
we hope that eventually Uncle Sam will have some ways at the Gasconade, 
which is a good location for them. 

Congressman Borland. I want to call the attention to a particular provision 
of Congress making it compulsory upon railways to make through rates appli¬ 
cable by water, and those through rates are referred to in our brief, so we 
are not covering those points in detail where they are already before the 
board. 

Now, Mr. Mackie, how are you prepared at this time, after this experience 
in operating a boat line, to go after business in Kansas City on the basis of 
service and rate? 

Mr. Mackie. I am pleased to say in answer to that question that this is the 
first year in which we have been able to work —to go out and solicit tonnage 
purely on the basis of service offered and the saving in rate. That is, in the 
past there has been an element of sympathy for the river which has been taken 
advantage of in soliciting business from shippers; but now we are asking for 
freight purely on the basis of service rendered and the saving in rate, and we 
are gettng it on that basis. 

Congressman Borland. Are there any further questions? 


176 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

Chairman Black. I would like to ask a few questions as to the amount of 
time consumed in the movement of freight by rail. 

Congressman Borland. Can you give us that, Mr. Mackie? Information as to 
the amount of time consumed in putting a car of freight into Kansas City by 
rail? 

Mr. Mackie. I doubt whether anybody can answer that question. Freight 
comes from St. Louis to Kansas City very quickly by rail sometimes and some¬ 
times not very quickly. There moved last year in a specific instance two car¬ 
loads of a certain commodity for a house that we had solicited. We got one 
car and the railway got the other. There was a question of friendship both 
ways in that particular instance. 

The car by boat was under way five days from St. Louis. It got to us the day 
we were sailing, so there was no terminal delay at St. Louis, and we de¬ 
livered it to the man at the plant here by switching it to the man’s plant; his 
reason given me then for not giving ns both cars was that he could not stand 
the time on one and that he had to have it in a hurry. However, our delivery 
was one day ahead at his plant of the other delivery. That is not offered as a 
criterion or proof of freight movement; but freight movement by rail, I think 
most every traffic man would tell you, is irregular as to time between St. Louis 
and Kansas City. It depends a great deal on the service which it is desired to 
give to a certain customer or a certain commodity or to the exigencies of the 
business. 

Chairman Black. I wanted to ask you that simply because of the fact that 
on the Hudson, for example, river delivery has been found very much more 
rapid and much more accurate than rail delivery; and I wondered to what ex¬ 
tent that same factor would enter here on the Missouri River. 

Mr. Mackie. I think it would be found that quicker delivery by water is 
limited to short hauls and is very largely between local points. Your LIudson 
River, of course, is different from this proposition here. Interior towns, of 
course, can always get quicker delivery by boat than by rail; but on the 
through haul from St. Louis to Kansas City we do not offer faster service than 
rail, but we solicit business on the theory that there is a 20 per cent saving 
and that that entitles us to make a little slower delivery than by rail. I have 
no doubt but that on the average it is a little slower. Then under our opera¬ 
tions we have now a sailing every fifth day. That means loss of time at the 
terminal on some freight—that is, freight going out, outbound freight. If we 
had daily sailings, which will eventually come, the loss of time will be cut down 
at the terminal so that practically there will be no loss of time at the terminal, 
and then the greater length of time will be only the greater time in running 
plus a day at either end. 

Col. Newcomer. Isn’t there an average time in which a man expects to receive 
a carload of freight here by rail that you can fairly count upon? 

Mr. Mackie. I presume there is; but that question can be better answered by 
some traffic expert who will be put on the stand, as I understand from the 
gentlemen in charge of the hearing. My experience has been on the river, and I 
don't know as to the railway time, only by hearsay. 

Chairman Black. One other question, Mr. Mackie, that I would like to ask 
you. l T ou spoke about using fuel oil. What arrangements have you made for 
supplying your boat with oil? 

Mr. Mackie. We secure our supply of fuel oil from the Standard Oil Co., 
which has a refinery at Sugar Creek, outside of Kansas City, about 10 miles 
on the river bank, and we have pipe-line delivery from the tanks of the Stand¬ 
ard Oil Co. at the river’s edge. And the same condition obtains at the other 
end at Wood River, Ill., which is a mile above the mouth of the river, where 
the Standard Oil has its Wood River plant; and we get our supplies there under 
the same arrangement. During the operating seasons we get oil at this end 
and the other end by direct pipe-line delivery, and I might say that we can 
take on a bunkering of oil sufficient to make a trip to St. Louis and back more 
than half way in less than two hours’ time by that arrangement. We have 
emergency supply stations, one a third way down at Glasgow and the other 
two-thirds of the way down at Hermann. We keep those emergency stations 
full of oil for emergencies in case of grounding between terminals or something 
of that kind. 

Congressman Borland. Anything further, gentlemen? 

Senator Reed. I desire to bring out a few matters that have been touched 
on and which I think might be made a little clearer. I wish you would tell the 
board the difficulties you encountered when you first started to reestablish navi- 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 177 


gation with reference to the lack of terminals, lack of wharves, lack of pilots, 
lack of skilled employees, etc., if you can make a short, condensed statement so 
that it can be readily used. 

Mr. Mackie. In the beginning there was a shortage, of course, of licensed 
men. A licensed pilot is very important and doubly so in an unimproved 
channel where the deepest water is in an uncertain location. There were very 
few desirable pilots available, and there was good reason for that, because 
there had been no employment for many pilots on the river. The few pilots 
that were available were employed by the Government very largely because 
they had maintained some sort of boat service all the time. We found it neces¬ 
sary to pick up the best pilots we could get and some material out of which to 
make pilots, and with all due respect to the pilots that were available, I think 
our case is notable in that all the pilots we have now are men who have been 
trained and who have gotten their license in our service with one exception. 
They are all young men who have been with us and got their license while 
working for us. Being unable to get pilots and even if we had been able to 
get high-class pilots, the fact that the river had been in disuse would naturally 
mean that they would not know where the channel was and not be familiar 
with it, and it meant a loss of a lot of time and meant a lot of expense on that 
account. 

The engineer question was somewhat different. There were plenty of licensed 
engineers, hut none or very few that had been accustomed to working in the 
way we wanted to work. We have always endeavored to run the boats just 
as an industry on shore would be run, and there were a lot of prejudices and 
conditions, you might readily understand, in the inland water business that had 
to be overcome. Our engineers as a body, with two exceptions, are men who 
were trained under our control. 

The lack of terminals is the big thing. We are very sure nobody could suc¬ 
cessfully operate on the Missouri River, even with a deeper channel, if proper 
terminals were not provided. Kansas City’s municipal terminal was, of course, 
the result of the boat-line organization here, but was not ready when we first 
began to operate, and we were obliged to handle freight by hand, which was 
very costly, of course, and very slow. Then when the terminal was completed 
and we had in the meanwhile completed a terminal in East St. Louis, we were 
practically able to cut our terminal cost in two. We had the experience of 
unloading one boat here at $1.60 a ton, low-class freight and all kinds. Barbed 
wire was very costly to unload by roustabout labor, the barbs sticking in the 
negro’s shoulder, and he does not handle it very well. But using freight¬ 
handling devices such as are available now I am pleased to say that we have 
been able to more than cut that cost in two. Our 1014 terminal cost, including 
both terminals, loading and unloading at Kansas City, and loading and unload¬ 
ing at St. Louis, has been cut to 63 cents per ton. I have no definite figures up 
to October 1 of this year, but we will make a further favorable showing this 
year. 

In that connection, if you please. Senator, the Kansas City municipal termi¬ 
nal, when originally built and equipped, was not built as a copy of anything in 
existence, because there were no inland water terminals in use, so far as we 
could learn or the city engineering department could learn, from which to 
copy. Of course there were seaboard terminals and some things were learned 
from some of the seaboard wharves; but the municipal terminal of Kansas City 
is verv largely original and necessarily some features in that terminal are not 
what we would build or what the city would build if it were building now after 
an experience of five years; but the fact that we have freight-handling devices 
that have more than cut the cost of freight handling in two is in itself some¬ 
what pleasing. And now our tonnage has developed and we have learned 
from experience that one freight-handling unit—by that I mean one freight- 
handling device handling freight from the barge to the dock or cars and vice 

versa _i s not sufficient, even though the tonnage be small; and I am pleased to 

say that the board of public works has given us assurance that a second freight- 
handling unit will be installed at Kansas City by the opening of navigation 
next year, and that a second Missouri Pacific switch track into the wharf house 
will be put in, which will give us 14 cars switch capacity. These additional 
facilities, even though we did not handle any more tonnage, would save us 
some money and some time in freight handling. 

Senator Reed. Now, Mr. Mackie, did you have any difficulty about dock 
laborers and getting your men? 

H. Doc. 463, 64-1-12 



178 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Mr. Mackie. Dock labor, Senator, if you please, is always a problem; but, 
like anything else, the more experience you have with the labor the better able 
you are to handle your labor. 

Senator Reed. I did not care for details, but just if you had had difficulty? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir. 

Senator Reed. And if you have overcome it to a large extent? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir; very satisfactorily. 

Senator Reed. Have you been able to overcome your difficulty about pilots 
and engineers? 

Mr. Mackie. We are very well pleased with the service we are getting. 

Senator Reed. And have your dock facilities been constantly growing better? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir. 

Senator Reed. And your experiments in the building of docks and in the 
handling of freight has enabled you to improve the service in that respect and 
save money? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes; very much. 

Senator Reed. Now, one other question, if I can get this in the most condensed 
form, because I do not want to consume but a moment. When you undertake 
to solicit freight business, what are the principal difficulties that you meet 
with? By that I mean what objections are raised? Is it to the fact that your 
boats move too slowly, or that you are uncertain in your trips, or that you have 
not proper facilities? What are the principal objections that you have had to 
meet in order to get business? 

Mr. Mackie. Slower time than rail, or generally considered slower time than 
rail, breaking bulk, or transferring from the car to the barge when the methods 
are not thoroughly understood. The question with the inexperienced shipper 
is when and how his claims will be paid and how they will be handled. An 
objection in most cases is the fear of slower time and of the breakage of mer¬ 
chandise handled. I want to say—and I do not want to answer that question 
and stop there—I want to say that this season when we have been able to in¬ 
duce the shipper to try the line, even with this prejudice, we have not had to 
attempt to explain that away the second time, because of our ability to handle 
freight with reasonable dispatch and regularity and without undue breakage. 

Senator Reed. Now, as to the question of slower time, while that has been 
gone over, I want to put it in again at this point. If the river had a 6-foot 
channel, what time then could you make between St. Louis and Kansas City? 
What kind of service could you give? 

Mr. Mackie. With boats designed for a 6-foot channel, which we should 
have and hope to have, when we have a 6-foot channel we should have no 
difficulty in making Kansas City from St. Louis on the upstream trip around 
70 hours. 

Senator Reed. What is the time now? 

Mr. Mackie. . Well, our best time is SO hours, and the average time is 100 
hours. 

Senator Reed. Downstream? 

Mr. Mackie. No; upstream. Coming from St. Louis to Kansas City up¬ 
stream it is an average of 100 hours, and the best time is SO hours; and with 
an improved channel it is fair to assume we could reduce that time to 70 hours. 

Senator Reed. Now. how much downstream? 

Mr. Mackie. We make downstream now without running nights in as low as 
two and a quarter days, daylight running. With an improved channel, and with 
safety in night running, we should make St. Louis with ease in 28 hours. That 
would be 1 day and 4 hours. 

Senator Reed. So the improvement of the Missouri River will directly reach 
the principal difficulties you have left, namely, that of time and safety? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes; we feel so. 

Senator Reed. Now, I want to ask you whether you have found that there 
has been a disposition to support the boat line? Whether you have built up 
a good will, even under the adverse conditions now existing? 

Mr. Mackie. We have a good will now that we consider quite valuable to us, 
and we have shippers also who are friends, because of the service they have 
got and the saving. 

Senator Reed. I don’t know whether you can answer this question or not. 
It has been developed that up to this time you have run the boat line at a loss. 
I wanted to ask you whether it is not a general rule that railroads, during the 
first years of their existence and when they are developing their territory, 
have been almost universally compelled to operate at a loss? 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 179 


Mr. Mackie. In order to answer a similar question I had occasion to look 
up records of the western railroad lines through a brokerage house, and was 
informed that the shortest time in which a new line had paid dividends in this 
part of the country was nine years. I don’t know how true that is. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Mackie, on that line is 80 per cent of the present 
rail rate, the lowest possible price on which you figure you can carry freight 
on a fairly improved river? 

Mr. Mackie. No, sir; we should be able to reduce that rate with more equip¬ 
ment, bigger tonnage, and an improved river. I don’t know whether it is gen¬ 
erally understood or not, but I would like to say from the operating standpoint 
that even 6 feet of water in the Missouri River, if not a permanent channel, 
would not make possible the efficiency and cheapness of operation that is de-. 
sirable. When we speak now of having 4 feet over the crossings as we have 
most of the time, that does not mean a permanent 4-foot channel, and the fact 
is that the expense of operating is very much enhanced by the fact that even 
that 4 feet is sometimes impossible to be found by the boat going down without 
a very painstaking search, and the pilot sometimes will even take a chance 
and get out of the channel. 

Congressman Borland. Do you figure that you can still further reduce the 
rate below the 80 per cent of the rail rate? 

Mr. Mackie. I do not want to be put in the position of saying we will further 
reduce the rate. If you want the question answered as to whether I think it 
can be done under an improved 6-foot channel, I will say yes. 

Congressman Borland. Now, I will ask you about the character of the freight 
you have been handling and the difference in the character of the freight from 
season to season. How is your percentage of high-grade freight now as com¬ 
pared with when you originally started—pianos, dry goods, notions, and so 
forth? 

Mr. Mackie. Well, generally speaking, we are getting a great deal more 
high-class freight—a great deal more third-class and higher—but as for a defin¬ 
ite answer, I would rather you would ask Mr. Poland, our general freight 
agent, who is familiar with that data. 

Congressman Borland. He is your traffic manager? 

Mr. Mackie. He is our general freight agent. 

Congressman Borland. I thought perhaps you could answer. 

Mr. Mackie. I don’t know and prefer to let him answer the question. 

Judge W. T. Bland. One question. I may save time by asking it. Mr. 
Mackie, I am afraid the impression may exist in the mind of the board that 
we have only $300,000, or about $300,000, which would be available for the 
purchase of additional barges and towboats. I wish you would explain to the 
board how much money has been collected and how much you expect to collect 
from solvent subscribers. Isn’t it a fact—or, first, let me ask you, it is a fact 
that a large amount of this money bears 5 per cent interest—in fact, all of it— 
and some perfectly solvent subscribers are carrying their subscriptions at that 
rate and can pay when called upon? 

Aj r . Mackie. Yes, sir. Our capital was raised by subscriptions to preferred 
stock payable 10 per cent quarterly, the deferred payments drawing 5 per cent 
interest per annum. We have collected $1,008,000 in round numbers on the 
preferred stock ,and have uncollected upward of $200,000, of which we estimate 
between $125,000 and $150,000 is still collectible; and I might say that we 
are collecting money every day on those delinquent subscriptions. A few of 
them are from firms that are absolutely solvent and in a position to pay. but 
who prefer paying their 5 per cent even when urged to pay up the balance of 
the subscription. 

Judge Bland. So that there would be a reserve fund of between four and 
five hundred thousand dollars? 

Mr. Mackie. My estimate is $450,000 of additional cash available, or will 
be available, for expenditures in new power. 

Judge Bland. And if operated successfully at a profit, with the differential 
that exists against the rail rate and with regular service there would be not 
mu"h trouble, Mr. Mackie, in raising an additional amount, would there? 

Mr Mackie. Well, you went through the campaign I did in raising the 
money and I think you are as prepared to answer that as well as I; and I 
do not think we need have much trouble in getting it under those conditions. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Is Mr. .Tost, the mayor of Kansas City, here? The 
mavor^not being here, I will ask Col. Coyle, of St. Louis, to take the stand, as 
I want to ask him about the proposed terminals at St. Louis. 


180 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Col. P. W. Coyle, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. Col. Coyle, will you please state your name and 
residence? 

Col. Coyle. P. W. Coyle, St. Louis, Mo. 

Congressman Borland. Col. Coyle, I want to ask you about the proposed 
terminals in St. Louis. You are the transportation commissioner of the 
Business Men’s Association of St. Louis, are you? 

Col. Coyle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Can you tell this board now, in the beginning, what 
the present attitude of St. Louis is in regard to providing municipal terminals. 

Col. Coyle. We have recognized for a long time that we could not utilize 
river transportation facilities unless we could enable the industries on track 
at St. Louis to get to tlie river transportation facilities. In other words, we 
have recognized that our water and rail transportation must articulate freely. 

We have in the neighborhood of 900 industries on track at St. Louis. Now, 
those industries can not patronize any water-transportation facilities to any 
great extent. They are patronizing now the Missouri River Transportation 
Co. to a limited extent, because of the fact that has been stated here, that the 
switching charges are absorbed. But it is my understanding that an absorp¬ 
tion is made, but it is for cartage in lieu of switching. That, of course, limits 
the movement of the traffic to that from those industries on track. Therefore 
the traffic that is now being given by the St. Louis shippers to the Missouri 
River Transportation Co. is no criterion at all of what they could get and 
would get had we the terminal facilities and the railroad connections which 
we shall have when our municipal dock is completed. We have the assurance 
of the mayor of St. Louis that the appropriation is available and plans are 
drawn, and that the dock will be completed promptly so that our rail-and-river 
traffic will freely articulate. And in connection with that there will come into 
the possession of the city of St. Louis 11 miles of track which will be operated 
by the municipality in connection with that dock. Those tracks will connect 
with all our terminal tracks in the city of St. Louis, so that when our dock is 
completed and we have possession of the 11 miles of track we will then be in 
connection with all of the industries in St. Louis. Then we can give our traffic 
to boat lines. 

Congressman Borland. In that connection, Col. Coyle, the dock of the Kansas 
City-Missouri River Navigation Co. is located at East St. Louis, Ill., is it not? 

Col. Coyle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. But you are purposing to establish a municipal ter¬ 
minal in the city of St. Louis? 

Col. Coyle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Which will reach, by means of connecting switch 
tracks, practically all the industries in the city of St. Louis? 

Col. Coyle. l r es, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And give you direct access to the boat line? 

Col. Coyle. Yes; exactly. 

Congressman Borland. Now, that is well under way in St. Louis? 

Col. Coyle. Yes. sir. 

Congressman Borland. Now, can you tell this board what is the attitude of 
the commercial interests and the shipping public of St. Louis toward the im¬ 
portance of the Missouri River as a freight carrier? 

Col. Coyle. We feel this—I speak now for the Business Men’s League of 
St. Louis, representing 2,400 members. We feed that it is of vital importance 
to the commercial interests of St. Louis that we have this river transportation 
fully developed between Kansas City and St. Louis. We are on the Missouri 
River. We recognize the Missouri River as it flows by our doors, because it 
does not mix with the Mississippi until it flows by us; and the construction of 
that dock and boat will be followed with two others. We feel that we are 
putting ourselves in a position to take advantage of just such facilities as our 
shippers have been contending for for years. One witness has testified in 
substance that it is a matter of education to get the shippers back to the use 
of water facilities. They have become so accustomed to the railroads, and the 
railroads have offered such advantageous facilities of doing business from their 
door and delivering it to the door of the customer, etc., that it is very 
difficult for a boat line now to approach a shipper in such a way as to 
make it attractive to that shipper to put his goods in its possession. 

Now, we have watched with a great deal of interest the development of this 
Missouri River Transportation Co. By degrees they have come to us with just 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 181 


the facilities that we want and the methods of doing business that we want. 
The great difficulty we have had in developing the river traffic along the Mis¬ 
sissippi is that the boat lines did not offer us, first, insured rates; second, an 
insured bill of lading; and they made no particular attempt to solicit the 
business as the railroads did. This company comes with an insured rate and 
an insured bill of lading, and now are attempting to give us regular service, 
which is of vital importance to a shipper. lie wants expeditious service, but 
he also wants regular service, and he wants all that the rail carriers will give 
him so far as the protection of his goods, while in the possession of tlie carrier, 
is concerned. Those are all offered now by this Missouri River Transportation 
Co., and the shippers of St. Louis are extremely anxious to put themselves in a 
position where they can patronize such a company. And I am sure if that 
company can be kept in operation and permitted to develop its facilities that 
we can give them a large increased tonnage. 

Col. Newcomer. Are those docks in St. Louis to be municipally operated? 

Col. Coyle. Yes, sir; that is the purpose now, in addition to the 11 miles of 
railroad which will come into the possession of the city on the 1st of December. 

Col. Winslow. Will that be constructed with reference to all river traffic— 
Mississippi as well as the Missouri? 

Col. Coyle. Yes. Well, the Missouri empties into the Mississippi 2G miles 
above us, but these facilities will be for any boat coming there. 

Senator Reed. Col. Coyle, have you had any difficulty at St. Louis with refer¬ 
ence to what was called the bridge arbitrary? 

Col. Coyle. Yes, sir. 

Senator Reed. I am going to ask you in the form of a leading question: Isn’t 
it a fact that because of that bridge arbitrary a great deal of industry has 
gone to the Illinois side of the river? At least that has been so charged and 
understood for many years. 

Col. Coyle. Yes, that is charged; and to some extent that, I think, is true. 

Senator Reed. Now, if these boats were able to land the goods upon the Mis¬ 
souri side at the city of St. Louis proper, would that give them some advantage 
in the matter of rates by giving the shipper some advantage? 

Col. Coyle. I do not believe it would give any particular advantage. It 
would avoid this—it would avoid hauling to East St. Louis and delivery there 
to the boat line at their docks as they now exist. 

Senator Reed. I am trying to get at this fact—if it is a fact—that freight 
rates are now so adjusted at East St. Louis as that a considerable advantage 
would accrue, or would it not be an advantage now to the city of St. Louis if 
they could secure an outlet for a portion of its goods at least at its own docks 
in the city of St. Louis proper? 

Col. Coyle. Well, Senator, the rates now are so adjusted that they are the 
same from East St. Louis as from St. Louis to all western points—outside of 
a radius of about 100 or 150 miles. 


Senator Reed. Within that radius-- 

Col. Coyle (internetting). Within that radius there is an additional charge. 

Senator Reed. There is an additional charge? 

Col. Coyle. There is an additional charge that would be an advantage over 
us up as far as Jefferson City. The rate breaks there. 

Senator Reed. So that within the radius of 150 miles there would spring up 
an actual competition which would he beneficial to the city of St. Louis, and 
would help it overcome the thing that has been heretofore referred to as the 
bridge arbitrary, although it is now classified, I think, merely as a freight rate. 

Col. Coyle. Well, there would be that difference as between the rate from 


East St. Louis as against St. Louis. 

Col. Newcomer. So far as the territory of Missouri is concerned, that bridge 
arbitrary would be in favor of St. Louis, would it not? 

Col. Coylfh That bridge arbitrary is in favor of St. Louis as against East 
St Louis in the territory up to and including Jefferson City. 

Senator Reed. You mean that the doing away of it by the boat line would be 

in "favor of St. Louis? 

Col. Coyle. No; St. Louis has that advantage to-day, as a rail proposition. 
Senator Reed. Well, then, turning it around, outside of that territory of 150 
miles, there is an additional charge for crossing the river? 

Col. Coyle. No ; the rates are the same. • 

Senator Reed Now, either one statement is wrong or the other, or one or 
both of us are confused. Within 150 miles are the rates the same from East 
St. Louis as from St. Louis? 



182 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Col. Coyle. No ; they are less from St. Louis than from East St. Louis. 

Senator Heed. Which way? 

Col. Coyle. In Missouri. 

Senator Heed. I am speaking about freight coming from the East. 

Col. Coyle. Freight coming from the East, the rates are, at the present 
moment, slightly greater to St. Louis than to East St. Louis. 

Senator Heed. And they have been for many years considerably greater? 

Col. Coyle. Up to 1906 there was what might be called, and was properly 
called, a bridge arbitrary. 

Senator Heed. Yes. 

Col. Coyle. In 1906 the rates from the East made the same, St. Louis as East 
St. Louis, to and from all points outside of a radius of 100 miles. Within that 
100-mile radius there was a differential in the rates from St. Louis and East 
St. Louis ranging from 3 cents down to a cent and one-half. 

Senator Heed. Now, there is just one other matter. What effort is being 
made to restore river transportation on the Mississippi? 

Col. Coyle. The Business Men’s League has been engaged in that effort for 
the last four years with varying success, but at the present moment we have 
no organized effort. There are individuals at the present moment who are 
projecting a steel-barge line to be operated between St. Paul and New Orleans. 
Their present headquarters are at St. Louis. 

Senator Reed. What effect would the establishment of such a line on the 
Mississippi River have with reference to the promotion of business on the boat 
line on the Missouri River? 

Col. Coyle. I believe it would stimulate that. We feel this: That if we had 
a boat line at St. Louis we would feel the necessity of having that as an impor¬ 
tant connection for the full development of the Mississippi River. 

Senator Reed. Well, wouldn’t the two naturally each tend to build up the 
other? 

Col. Coyle. Most assuredly. 

Senator Heed. That is a somewhat involved sentence, but you know what I 
mean. 

Col. Coyle. Most assuredly. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Any further questions? If there are none, I will in¬ 
quire when does the board wish to adjourn? 

Chairman Black. I think we might continue until 12.30. 

Congressman Borland. I want at this point to put on Mr. Jewell Mayes, the 
agricultural commissioner of Missouri, in regard to the agricultural tonnage 
and traffic and the matter of the reclamation lands between Kansas City and 
St. Louis, as bearing upon the tonnage of the river. I find, however, he is 
not present at this moment, and I will call on Mr. A. D. Spear. 

A. D. Spear, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Spear, you may state your name. 

Mr. Spear. A. D. Spear. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Spear, you are the representative of the Com¬ 
mercial Club or Business Men’s Association of Chamois, Mo.? 

Mr. Spear. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. You are a business man and banker at that point? 

Mr. Spear. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. At Chamois you have got the advantage of having 
the two tributary rivers, the Gasconade and the Osage, to connect with Mis¬ 
souri River traffic, have you not? 

Mr. Spear. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. Now, I wish you would explain to the board the 
character of the traffic on the Osage and Gasconade and the direction of the 
movement and how it might be connected with the Missouri River navigation. 

Mr. Spear. Chamois is located on the Missouri Pacific Railroad, which trav¬ 
erses the northern end of Osage County from east to west, Osage County lying 
on the south bank or south side of the Missouri River. Now, the Missouri 
River bounds Osage County on the north, affording, I should judge, about 30 
miles of water front. The Osage River bounds Osage County on the west, and 
the Gasconade winds diagonally through our county. Now, Chamois is located 
about halfway between the mouths of the Osage and Gasconade Rivers. We 
have a rich agricultural section there and have a large flour mill at Chamois, 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 183 


and we depend at that point for deliveries of grain from the banks of the 
Osage River and from the banks of the Gasconade River, which is brought 
down those rivers to the Missouri River stations at the mouths of those rivers 
and milled in transit to Chamois. 

Now, I think that Osage County has probably more river mileage than any 
other county in the State; and these rivers—I speak of Osage County because 
I feel that our community is interested, and I speak of it as a division because 
that particular division, Osage County, is particularly interested in the Mis¬ 
souri River and the improvement of those tributaries, the Osage and the Gas¬ 
conade Rivers, and because along those rivers we have very fertile agricul¬ 
tural lands and the population along the Osage and the Gasconade Rivers are 
particularly dependent upon the navigation of those streams to move their crops. 
The land is very fertile, very rich, and produces large crops of grain—corn and 
wheat, etc.—and produces it along the banks of the streams. Now, those 
farmers need the service of navigation upon those streams to move their crops 
to market, and it is not a question alone of the difference in the freight rates 
charged by the railroad companies and the boats, although that is an important 
item, but it is an important question of having the service to avoid the wagon 
haul necessary to get, in the most economical way, the product of those farms 
along the Osage and Gasconade Rivers to market, it being most economically 
done by harvesting their crops—for instance, wheat or corn—and placing them 
on the river bank and then loading them directly off the farm onto the boats, 
which is practically as easily done as it would be to load the grain upon wagons. 
Then, by that cheap transportation, the grain is floated down the river to 
market. And if the farmers did not have the advantage of that service it 
would be necessary to have that grain moved by wagons up hills and over many 
miles of more or less rough road to some point upon the railroad. And the same 
is true to some extent of this Missouri River frontage along the north end of 
the county. And I have talked with farmers and people interested there, who 
declare that if they were to be deprived of the advantage of this service it 
would reduce the value of their lands at least 25 per cent. 

Now. that is not all. On account of the Gasconade River flowing diagonally 
through the county and because of the Osage River flowing on the western 
border, they will be highly useful in the further development of our county. 
Now, only about 42 per cent of the land of Osage County has been improved, 
and if the river navigation is to be abandoned and Osage County is to be de¬ 
prived of that service, we feel that it would be a very fatal blow to the future 
development of that land. And because, as I have stated, we have more navi¬ 
gable river mileage in our county than any other county, we are more vitally 
interested in the improvement of those rivers probably than any other agri¬ 
cultural locality in the State. I am speaking purely and solely now from the 
viewpoint of the benefit this service gives to the farmers in the development 
of that agricultural area. We have about $10,000,000- worth of farming lands 
in Osage County and it is highly important that those lands should have the 
service of this navigation, not alone for reducing the freight rates, but also 
for giving the service that railroads can never give. 

If I might be permitted, I would like to refer to another item: Some years 
ago the Missouri River was improved, as this board is aware, from Murrays 
Bend, I believe, to the Gasconade River, and points along the south bank were 
protected, where the river was attacking, for the purpose of straightening the 
channel and establishing navigable channels. Now, I figure that along the 
northern portion of Osage County, fronting on this river, we have an area of 
very valuable fertile farm lands averaging a mile in width, making probably 
30 square miles of 640 acres to the mile—probably 20,000 acres of land. Now, 
that land was protected from erosion and it has become a permanent and fixed 
matter; and we figure that the value that has been derived from that protection 
of those lands, figuring the protection at the basis of $100 an acre, which we 
think is fair, has really made a benefit of $2,000,000 to the owners of that land 
and not alone the owners, but to the public at large, as it is interested in the 
conservation and protection of that land. 

At Chamois and in that locality we have been desirous of having established 
' a regular and dependable boat service. We have not got that now. We are 
told that it is because during a great portion of the year the water becomes so 
low in the channel that hitherto boats have not found it profitable; and the 
result has been that the merchants and the shippers have not been able to use 
the river as they desired, simply because the channel was not there upon which 
9 regular and dependable boat service could be given. 


184 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Shippers and particularly merchants—for I was a country merchant for 
many years—about SO years—what the merchant needs is a regular boat 
service, a regular schedule upon which he can depend for the shipment of his 
goods, so that when he places an order, for instance, in St. Louis, which is our 
market largely, though we buy some things in Kansas City, too, but from St. 
Louis more largely, he can depend upon regular and prompt service. Now, 
what we need is a regular and dependable boat service and we can not have 
that unless the channel is maintained during the whole season so that it is 
profitable to the boat owners; and for that reason it has not been kept up. 
Now, we need that service not alone as the only competition that we have with 
the railroads, so far as freight rates are concerned, but because along that 30 
miles of Missouri River front a large sum of money can be saved annually to 
those farmers if they can load their grain upon barges at the river front instead 
of loading it on wagons and going to the expense of a wagon haul and conveying 
it to railroad points. 

I want to call your attention to just one more thing about the Osage and 
Gasconade Rivers. A large proportion of the agricultural products of Osage 
County are floated down the Gasconade and Osage Rivers until they reach the 
railroad point on the Gasconade at Hermann, and there they are loaded upon 
railroad cars. 

Now, the most economical thing to be done would be for those products 
brought down the Osage and Gasconade Rivers to be loaded upon barges which 
might be waiting there for the reception of the stuff and then carried on to 
destination. That would be a cheaper, more economical, and more satisfactory 
method of marketing the stuff. Now, during the fall of each year the water 
runs the lowest and that is for our section the most important shipping period 
of the year; and I can think of nothing that would afford a greater and more 
permanent advantage to the farmers and commercial business and the develop¬ 
ment of Osage County than to have an assurance that the channel of the 
Missouri River w r ould in the future be maintained. We have been looking for¬ 
ward to that and it is a great disappointment to the farmers of our section 
that it is now threatened, and we take off our hats to Kansas City and her 
Commercial Club in taking the lead in this movement, and we simply join her 
in the appeal that this improvement which has promised us so great an 
advantage for the future be continued and not abandoned. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Spear, you say that Osage County—the northern 
portion of the county—abuts on this portion of the Missouri River which was 
improved from Murrays Bend to the mouth of the Gasconade. 

Mr. Spear. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And those revetments do necessarily and inevitably 
effect the protecting and reclamation of the farm lands and riparian lands 
abutting on the river? 

Mr. Spear. I assert that most positively. There are very valuable farms 
there that can be sold for $200 an acre now, that sold before that improvement 
was made for $45 an acre. 

Congressman Borland. Now, that is the inevitable effect of the channel 
improvement? 

Mr. Spear. Absolutely, because it was being attacked and swept away; and 
by that revetment it has been maintained and the owners, feeling perfectly 
secure in the permanent position of the land and their investment- 

Congressman Borland. Now, the products of that land are directly tributary 
to the shipping facilities of the river? 

Mr. SrEAR. Absolutely so, because they lie on the river front and what they 
need to have is the service of a regular and a dependable local service to carry 
their crops away. Now, this through boat service I do not think has been 
soliciting shipments from our locality in a regular way. I suppose because they 
have not had the time to make their schedules and do so; but what we need 
there is a service that will pick up and carry and handle regularly and de- 
nendably the production of those farms along the Missouri, the Osage, and the 
Gasconade Rivers. 

Congressman Borland. Then it is a fact that as rapidly as the revetment 
progresses and the banks are reclaimed and protected, the farm land will come 
into a high state of cultivation, which will furnish traffic for the river? 

Mr. Spear. It is absolutely true. It is there now. So far as the land along 
the Missouri River is concerned, it is in a high state of farming. Now what 
they need is the service. But the farmers along the Osage and the Gasconade 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 185 


Rivers are shipping their stuff and have been continually shipping their stuff 
each fall down the Osage and the Gasconade through the local boat service 
given by the local boat owners there. 

Congressman Borland. In connection with Mr. Spear’s testimony I want 
to call attention to Exhibit 14, which appears there in the brief, which shows 
the surplus shipments of 1012 of all the 20 Missouri counties bordering on 
the Missouri River. Exhibit 14 shows the surplus shipments of agricultural 
products and we want to take that in connection with the statement that there 
are 500,000 acres of that same kind of land still to be reclaimed. What Mr. 
Spear says of Osage County is typical of every Missouri county bordering on 
the river. 

Mr. Spear. I just want to say that what is true with respect to us is very 
particularly true of the north shores of the Missouri River directly across 
from my county in Calloway County. They have a large area of similar land 
with similar conditions, and they are needing it just the same as we do. 
I simply make my appeal on behalf of the farmers of my section and I can not 
emphasize too strongly the .damage that will be inflicted upon the farmers of 
my county in their efforts for the future development of their lands and farms 
if this service in the future is to be denied. 

Congressman Borland. Any further questions? 

Chairman Black. Senator Reed, have you some questions that you wish 
to put? 

Senator Reed. No questions. 

Chairman Black. If there is nothing further, we thank you very much, Mr. 
Spear. 

Mr. Spear. There is just one thing I wish to add. I understand and we 
fire all perfectly aware that Congress is not authorized to make appropriations 
for keeping water off or improving or protecting farm lands from erosion; but 
we down there very strongly feel that if as an incident to the establishment of 
a dependable channel for navigation, this land is protected and saved in this 
day when there is so much talk about conservation and the high cost of living, 
why isn’t it a matter of very great congratulation and gratification upon the 
part not only of the owners of the land, but the country at large? And if the 
Government could appropriate money to put water on the arid lands of the 
West in order to reclaim them for agricultural purposes, why could not Con¬ 
gress appropriate money to keep water off of valuable agricultural lands in 
order to conserve them. And again let me ask this question, Why isn't it right 
that the Government, or why should not the Government keep the water off 
these valuable lands—the water of navigable streams over which it exercises 
an exclusive jurisdiction and control, not allowing even the State to interfere 
in the protection of these lands from eroding? Why would it not be proper 
for them to keep the water of those navigable streams off these valuable 
agricultural lands belonging to private owners? 

Chairman Black. You say the General Government does not allow the State 
to interfere. What do you mean by that? 

Mr. Spear. I have understood that the Federal Government exercises an 
exclusive control over its navigable waters and that the State could not, with¬ 
out securing the privilege from the Federal Government, do any work for the 
protection of the navigable streams, or rather the lands along them, from 
erosion by them. 

Chairman Black. All that the Government does in that case is to require 
that the work shall be done in such manner as not to do injury. As I under¬ 
stand, the Government is very glad indeed to have the States assist in that. 

Mr. Spear. There is the point. There ought to be cooperation. But if the 
State undertakes to carry out a scheme of improvement, it would very likely 
run amuck with the policies or the ideas of the improvement of navigation as 
adopted by the Federal Government, and perhaps would not be able to carry 
out an effective scheme of protection of its lands from erosion in an economical 
way. for the reason, perhaps, that it might be denied, in the first place, and, 
again, directed in such a manner as to make it too costly and too ineffectual. 

"chairman Black. Do you know that that is being actually done in Cali¬ 
fornia to-day and has been done not only in that State but has been done in 
Florida and has been done in Massachusetts. 1 could go on and show that 
there is no difficulty at all about cooperation, if the State is willing to cooperate. 

Mr. Spear. We have felt that in our effort to develop the great Middle West 
the Government, which has so wisely and generously appropriated millions for 


186 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


tlie improvement of eastern harbors and the Ohio River and other rivers, would 
not he averse to giving us some assistance here in the development of the West. 

Chairman Black. That is not the question now. The question is as to co¬ 
operation. I only wanted to correct your idea on that. 

Mr. Speak. I understand. 

Congressman Borland. This much is true, Mr. Spear, that with reference to 
the Missouri River, which is a very rapid stream and runs through soft alluvial 
banks, any scheme of reclamation or channel protection must be of sufficient 
length and sufficiently comprehensive from an engineering viewpoint to em¬ 
brace more than a mere local protection of banks. In other words, if the 
landowners were to engage in a single county to get protection along the bank, 
it might not, and in all likelihood would not, correspond with the regimen of 
the stream above and would be liable to he torn out very soon and swept down 
the Missouri. I presume the Missouri River is peculiar and different from 
Florida or California rivers. 

Mr. Spear. I understand that; and I only hope that a general scheme of 
improvement may he adopted in which the Government will lead for the pro¬ 
tection not only of its channel for navigation, which is such an important 
consideration and for which we are all contending, but also of such a char¬ 
acter that it may incidentally protect these valuable lands. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Colonel, I think it would be convenient now at this 
time to adjourn without putting another witness on. 

Chairman Black. We will take a recess .until 2 o’clock. 

AFTERNOON SESSION, TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 1915. 

Judge Bland. If the board please, I desire to state that the river committee 
that has had up by correspondence with the department the question of the 
river improvement, has requested Senator Reed -to be present during the entire 
hearing to ask questions that he deems pertinent to bring out additional facts 
for the information of the board; so that he represents the commercial in¬ 
terests also. 

Congressman Borland. Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman Black. We are ready as soon as you are ready. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Walter Parker will please take the stand. 

Walter Parker, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. Please state your name. 

Mr. Parker. Walter Parker. 

% 

Congressman Borland. What is your official position with the commercial 
bodies of New Orleans? 

Mr. Parker. I am general manager of the Association of Commerce of New 
Orleans. I have other connections in connection with the river development, if 
you desire to know them. 

Congressman Borland. I wish you would state fully your connection with 
the commercial interests on the river and the traffic interests on the river 
in order that we may show your experience. 

Mr. Parker. I am chairman of an organization of the Mississippi Valley 
Commercial Secretaries who have organized for the purpose of promoting the 
use of navigable rivers of the Mississippi Valley. I have been on the job of 
getting New Orleans to take the interest that she should take to promote 
the use of the Mississippi River for the last 1G years. 

Congressman Borland. Now, Mr. Parker, I will call your attention to the 
report of the district officer at Kansas City, section 14, in which he speaks of 
the present and prospective commerce on the Missouri River and on the 
Mississippi River, and I will get you to analyze that statement for the benefit 
of the board from your knowledge and experience of river traffic. 

Mr. Parker. That is the statement in which it is said that the commercial 
value of the river does not justify the expenditure. That is what brought 
me here, gentlemen, to protest, representing the city of New Orleans. We 
maintain that the use of the rivers is absolutely essential to every section of 
the river-served valley; that aside from economies that may be obtained there, 
the Panama Canal has robbed every common point on the rivers of the Mis¬ 
sissippi Valley of differentials on which they had their foundation and their 
growth, and that some way must be found to restore the favorable position 
of the Mississippi Valley cities; and I mean by that the tributary cities also 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 187 


Otherwise the valley will lose many of its industries and they will move to 
the ports. Now, of course, while the ports want to get all the industries they 
can, we do not want the hinterland that we say belongs to New Orleans robbed 
of its industries, because we do not want it robbed of its prosperity. 

Now, the Panama Canal has given a short haul to the Pacific from the 
Atlantic coast and the Gulf that puts the valley in the position of having to 
pay the cost to the seaboard in order to compete with the seaboard on western 
commerce, which is a differential against the valley that did not exist before. 
In fact, the valley had a differential in its favor before the Panama Canal was 
built. We maintain that the use of river routes is the only way in which the 
Mississippi Valley cities may secure a restoration of a favorable position to 
enable them to continue business to a very large territory. In fact, the markets 
of greater t promise in the world are Pacific coast markets, and unless the 
valley gets a cheap way of reaching the sea and sliipside, it will be under 
serious handicap for all time to come. We have been on our part of the job 
in creating terminal facilities that will give the boats the same economy in the 
particular terminals that railroads have got. They have never before had 
such facilities. It costs a great deal more to terminal freight by boat than it 
did by railroad, and that, we have found, has offset the advantage of the 
cheaper haul by boat. So we are putting in a complete system of coordinated 
river-and-rail terminal facilities at very heavy expense. New Orleans has 
equipped herself to serve the Mississippi River Valley and to serve the cities 
of that valley at an expense in all of about $129,000,000. 

Congressman Borland. What other considerations enter into successful 
navigation, traffic on the river, besides the mere question of channel? In 
other words, what facilities do shippers need so that they may make use of 
boats on the river, in addition to the mere fact that a channel has been 
established? 

Mr. Parker. First, they need an established channel, which is the duty, 
as we understand it, of the Government to provide. Next, they need coordi¬ 
nated river-and-rail terminal facilities so that freight may be brought to and 
from the boats without unnecessary cost. That has heretofore been frightfully 
expensive. Also, they need a boat system supplied with boats that are economi¬ 
cal in their construction, in their power, and in their operation; and the boat 
system must be developed broadly with its lines and means of supply and 
means of distribution just like any other system of transportation. We do not 
believe that little short local boat lines will ever develop into a great po¬ 
tential factor in commerce; but if boat lines are run from the seaport to the 
head of deep-water navigation, and radiating from there are other boat lines 
to the tributaries, and to those boat lines come the concentration facilities of 
the railroads and motor roads and wagon roads, that the boat line will then 
become a most important economic factor in the development of commerce 
in the valley. 

Congressman Borland. Has Mississippi River traffic had the advantage of 
those facilities in the past? 

Mr. Parker. No, sir; it has not. 

Congressman Borland. Is that, in your judgment, what has been the matter? 

Mr. Parker. Absolutely, from New Orleans up. The facts as to the con¬ 
ditions at New Orleans are briefly these: The French were very strong on 
communal facilities. They gave the city of New Orleans public ownership of 
the facilities for commerce. In 1803 the Louisiana Purchase brought this 
port of New Orleans into the Union, and thereafter it was dominated by the 
American, or, speaking more properly, the English point of view, which 
brought about a private development such as occurred in connection with the 
harbor of New York, which, as you will recall, was developed by private 
enterprise. There arose, therefore, a conflict with referense to the im¬ 
provement of the harbor of New Orleans, and no harmony of effort, and 
nothing could be done in the matter. There was a spirit of private develop¬ 
ment and no opportunity for public development because the private develop¬ 
ment shut it out. Then in 1906 we began the work. In 1905 we got thor¬ 
oughly organized, and in 1915 we are engaged in building a system of ware¬ 
houses and terminal facilities and terminal canals, and there is public develop¬ 
ment in every direction, and what is being done is being done in the highest 
scientific engineering manner to get at the greatest amount of economy. 

Congressman Borland. You have a belt railway or belt canal around New 

Orleans? 


188 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Mr. Parker. We have a belt railroad owned by the city of New Orleans 
which has reduced the cost of belting cars from a charge of $8, $10, $15, or 
$20 to a uniform charge of $2 per car, and the city belt railway is making 
money at this price. 

Congressman Borland. That is municipally owned? 

Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And you have a belt canal also, have you? 

Mr. Parker. No belt canal. We have canals, but they do not reach the 
river. Last year we passed an amendment to the constitution of Louisiana 
providing for the opening of a canal that will ultimately canalize the city of 
New Orleans as the Amsterdam improvements have done for that city, and 
the banks have been opened to purchase, ownership, and development by 
private enterprises. 

Congressman Borland. Are you aware, Mr. Parker, that through shipments 
of coffee, importations of coffee, have been brought to St. Louis from Brazil 
by water? 

Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And transferred from the ocean freight vessels to 
barges at New Orleans? 

Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And brought up the river in that way? 

Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Now, what, in your judgment, is going to be the 
effect of the opening of the Panama Canal on the Mississippi River Valley 
cities as compared with the Atlantic ocast cities? 

Mr. Parker. Unless there are equal water facilities afforded to both groups 
of cities, it will be very disastrous—it is very disastrous now. 

Congressman Borland. Well, do you want to explain that a little further? 
In what way is that true? 

Mr. Parker. In this way: The valley cities were developed because of the 
river. No terminal facilities were put in. It being a monopoly nobody felt 
the need of doing anything to economize the cost of traffic. The railroads 
came along and built terminals, and the terminals were economic, and that 
factor offset the greater economy of boat traffic and the boats died. 

Now, the transcontinental railroad altered the drift of commerce from a 
north and south direction to an east and west direction. These valley cities 
being in the middle of the country naturally enjoyed a rate that was less 
than the Atlantic seaboard rate to the Pacific and from the Pacific to the 
Atlantic seaboard, and under the working of that differential all these indus¬ 
tries of the Mississippi Valley have been given a great and wholesome impulse 
and impetus, and they have grown. 

Now, the Panama Canal has broken up the transcontinental haul across the 
continent, or very largely so, and ultimately will, in many respects, break it 
up. The route now is from the Atlantic seaboard through the Panama Canal 
to the Pacific. That is the cheap rate. The shipper in the valley city, in order 
to get the benefit of that, has got to ship his commodity to the Atlantic sea¬ 
board and reach those water carriers. Therefore, the cost of transportation 
from the valley city to the Atlantic seaboard is a differential against the 
Mississippi Valley, and that differential has put many industries in the Mis¬ 
sissippi Valley in a very serious position. The only escape we can find is to 
use the all-water haul to the Gulf and in that way get the rate that will 
enable them to compete with the balance of the country who are being served 
by the Panama Canal. Now, if that is not done, I do not see how it is possible 
for many industries in the Mississippi Valley to maintain their position com¬ 
mercially unless they move to the seaport. 

Col. Abbot. Would commerce shipped from the Mississippi Valley by naviga¬ 
tion find an advantage at New Orleans? 

Mr. Parker. Yes; that gives them the shorter direct all-water haul, which 
is the cheaper haul. I have here a little cartoon 1 which very well expresses 
those figures—simply relative, not actual—and I will file one of these. 

Chairman Black. There is one on file now, Mr. Parker. 

Congressman Borland. In other words, Mr. Parker, even though the valley 
here produces an enormous quantity of raw material ready for the manufac¬ 
turer and has ample fuel, capital, and labor, it has still this transportation ele¬ 
ment against it which would militate against the growth of manufactories 


1 Not printed. 




MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 189 


here, and instead of their being able to turn this raw material into marketable 
products here with local capital and local labor, it must be sent as raw material 
to the seaport? 

Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. Our calculation and our object have been to develop 
facilities that would serve the commerce of the Mississippi Valley. Now, if 
the commerce of the Mississippi Valley can not come to 11 s by reason of this 
differential, then our position will have to be that of making an effort to 
attract the industries. Now, we think that our greatest future lies in the 
serving of the commerce of the Mississippi Valley and enabling the Mississippi 
Valley to use its river routes as well as railroads, so that instead of there being 
a monopoly of railroad transportation there will be both kinds of transporta¬ 
tion open to that valley, and we think that the line of least resistance will be 
that to the seaport of New Orleans, and that by developing our port to serve 
the shippers of the valley we will prosper better and to a greater degree than 
by endeavoring to take the factories away from the interior. However, unless 
something is done to relieve the interior from the differential which tlie 
Panama Canal has created against it, it is inevitable that many of the in¬ 
dustries of the Mississippi Valley will have to seek the seaboard. 

Congressman Borland. Have you something you wish to ask Mr. Parker, 
Senator Reed? 

Senator Reed. Yes. You speak of the city of New Orleans spending, in the 
securing of water terminals and railroad terminals connected, the sum of 
,$129,000,000. Do you know of other points on the Mississippi River or the 
tributaries thereof where large investments of that kind are being made? 

Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. Permit me to correct a statement there. That $129,- 
000,000, the total of it, is not being spent for terminal facilities; but it is all 
work necessary to equip the port of New Orleans to serve the Mississippi 
Valley. But I wish to say that the dock board has $23,750,000 that it has not 
yet expended to continue its terminal work of coordinated river and railroad 
facilities, and the belt railway has $8,750,000 that it has not yet expended to 
continue its improvements. 

Now, to answer the other question, Senator, Davenport is very busy on this 
job. Last spring they wired me for certain information concerning the com¬ 
merce possible to be developed on the river, and I sent them a G,000-word tele¬ 
gram giving them a complete story of what it all meant, and 011 the strength 
of that telegram, which came before the committee, they voted to build co¬ 
ordinated river and rail terminals. I have found that wherever we could get 
to the people of the Mississippi Valley the real story of what is needed in order 
to enable them to use the river, that they go out and act very promptly. 

Now, Cincinnati, they tell me, is building two boats. St. Louis, as you have 
heard this morning, is busy. St. Paul is busy; Davenport is reaching out; 
and every city in the upper Mississippi Valley is striving to coordinate river 
and rail terminal facilities in order that they may be enabled to hold the busi¬ 
ness. In every direction there is a very evident desire to build coordinated 
rail and river terminals to enable them to use the river and the boats. 

Senator Reed. What, if any, advantage would there be growing out of the 
improvement of the rivers so that they would be navigable in view of the com¬ 
pletion of the Panama Canal? 

Mr. Parker. Advantage? 

Senator Reed. Yes; what effect, in other words, has the building of the 
Panama Canal had on the question of river transportation? 

Mr. Parker. It has forced the issue. It has compelled the valley to use the 
rivers. It has made it necessary. 

Senator Reed. You were asked, I think, by Mr. Borland whether or not you 
knew of coffee having been unloaded at New Orleans and delivered at St. 
Louis by water. Do you know of rice or grains having been shipped from the 
Pacific coast and carried across by the Panama Railroad before the canal was 
built and being landed at the port of St. Louis? 

Mr Parker. I don’t recall that particular incident. 

Senator Reed. I wish you would state to the board what your judgment is 
with reference to the improvement of the Mississippi River, the Ohio, and the 
Missouri and all the other great tributaries; that is, as to each being dependent 
for its success upon the improvement of the others. 

Mr. Parker. That is absolutely unquestionable, Senator. The system of trans¬ 
portation in the Mississippi Valley is a system. It is not an isolated case. It 
is bevond shadow of doubt, the most wonderful system of natural navigable 
rivers in the world and the most neglected now. If the board cared for me to 


190 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


review why it has been neglected, according to my investigations, and why it is 
bound to be used again, I could go into it, but it would take 10 or 15 minutes. 

Chairman Black. I think the board would be very glad to hear it. Is there 
any other question, Senator, now? 

Senator Reed. Proceed with your thought, and I will reach the other later. 

Mr. Parker. The city of New Orleans was founded because the French knew 
of only one means of transportation—that was water. They put the city there 
because they knew that in the course of time the valley would develop, and they 
put it there to serve the valley. They did what they thought was the best 
thing in giving to the city its public ownership. 

Now, the river was a monopoly. As the valley developed the traffic was first 
in flat boats and then in rafts and then in steamboats, and there was no other 
outlet at all. The commerce had to come that way. And even with the neglect 
that was shown in the matter of terminals, the cities and towns of the valley 
developed under this monopoly. Along about 1830 the valley began to strenu¬ 
ously object to the cost of handling their commerce at the port of New Orleans. 
The commissions charged by merchants there were excessive; the cost of han¬ 
dling the bales and bags. In other words, they put on all the traffic could bear, 
because there was no other place for it to go. Cincinnati used to send flour 
down there and put it out on a mud bank, and it would be rained on and 
ruined and the fellow at Cincinnati had to stand it, and he didn’t like it and 
nobody else liked it, and all the time they were hunting for other outlets, and 
in the course of time they got the canal through New York and that took care 
of the upper country and the lake region; and they built the Memphis & 
Charleston Railroad so that they could get an outlet for their cotton other than 
via New Orleans. So they got this monopoly of the river broken down. 

We all know, of course, the long period in which the railroads used all kinds 
of methods to compete with the boats, because the purpose of the first railroad 
built and of many railroads was to tap the boat traffic. It was not the initial 
proposition to get new territory, but to get the business that the boats had 
built up and which they were not taking care of properly. 

And so with the terminal facilities of the railroads and the midnight tariffs 
and the rebates, the boats had an awful time, because they had started out as 
an uneconomic proposition. They built great big boats like the side-wheelers 
that used to have to carry 300 tons of propeller shaft and machinery to propel 
themselves. That in itself is giving away a good income at $1 a ton to carry 
the 300 tons of machinery they had to carry. So the boat lines died. In the 
place of the boats there has developed a monopoly of rail transportation, and 
that railroad transportation naturally does not take into consideration any 
desire on the part of the shipper to reach the line of least resistance or a par¬ 
ticular market he wants to go to, but it is the routing of freight according to the- 
needs of the railroad transportation system. The shipper has no chance him¬ 
self. He has to take what they give him. Now, that may be good railroading, 
but it is not good commerce. With the river, of course, he can take his choice, 
and it is that economic fact that the line of least resistance is to be opened 
up to the shipper that means everything to the commerce of the valley. He 
can use a railroad if he wants to, or he can use the river if he wants to; and 
in either case he can get just what he wants to use, and that is one of the 
great reasons, aside from the Panama Canal, why we have got to use these 
rivers. 

Senator Reed. Now, I was asking you if you know of other boats being con¬ 
structed at other places for river use. Had you completed your list? 

Mr. Parker. No, sir. There is a boat now being built, a modern, self-pro¬ 
pelled steel barge being built at Jeffersonville, Ind.; I am told by the builders 
that the boat will cost about $90,000. It is the first, I am told, of 38 self-pro¬ 
pelled barges that will run on the Mississippi River and its tributaries. There 
are 2 boats being built at Cincinnati. We have built at New Orleans 7 boats 
as the start, and those boats we have found underpowered for the river, and 
their successors will be given ample power. There are other boat lines that I 
have not in mind. 

Senator Reed. I want to make one matter plainer, if I can, and I am going 
to ask it in the form of a leading question, and if I do not state it correctly, 
please correct me. I understand your position to be that before the Panama 
Canal was built and the ocean traffic from the Atlantic ports to the Pacific 
ports had to take the long course around South America—around the Horn— 
that a business institution located in the Mississippi Valley could compete 
either east or west because of the long ocean haul, which was as expensive 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 191 


as to ship by rail from the Mississippi Valley either east or west—or approxi¬ 
mately so; and that now that the canal is built, there is a short haul between 

the two coasts, and that fact gives to either coast such an advantage that the 

manufacturer located in the Mississippi Valley can not ship to either coast 
and pay the railroad rates and compete with a competitor who is located on 
either coast. That is your position? 

Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. 

Senator Reed. Now, have you figured that out so that you feel certain as to 
the conclusion you arrive at? 

Mr. Parker. I feel absolutely certain that the differential against the Missis¬ 
sippi Valley shipper, who is compelled to use a transcontinental railway, is 
such that he can not compete with an ordinary competitor on either coast. 

Chairman Black. Can you give any figures on that? 

Mr. Parker. Well, here, this gives about the proportion (referring to the 
cartoon already exhibited to the board). This is not the rate at all. The all- 
rail haul from the common Mississippi Valley cities to San Francisco, in round 
figures, would be $2.50, as against rail-and-water haul from the Mississippi 
River cities by way of New York through the Panama Canal to San Francisco 
of $1, and against an all-water haul by way of New Orleans of 75 cents. Now, 
that is not the rate. That is simply the proportion. This has been figured 
for me by a rate man. 

Chairman Black. Now, have you accessible or can you lay your hand upon 
any data which will give the rate now charged by boats through Panama 
Canal from Atlantic to Pacific coast and from the Pacific coast to the Atlantic 
coast? 

Mr. Parker. No, sir; I am not prepared to discuss technically the rates. 
That is a matter entirely in the hands of my traffic manager and he is not 
here. 

Chairman Black. The statement, then, you made a while ago is simply your 
conclusion based upon your general knowledge of freight rates? 

Mr. Parker. I have studied the economic aspects of it and not the technical 
rate situation at all. 

Chairman Black. Have you made any study of the question as to the prac¬ 
ticability of operating small steamers that could engage in coastwise business— 
large enough to engage in the coastwise business—and to go through the canal 
and make the ports on the Pacific, as to whether those steamers of that class 
could be operated up the river, and if so, how much? 

Mr. Parker. No, sir. 

Chairman Black. Have you made any study of the question- 

Mr. Parker (interrupting). Yes, sir. 

Chairman Black (continuing). Of the cost of unloading freight from one 
boat to another at New Orleans? 

Mr. Parker. Why, under these new facilities we are putting in there we have 
reduced the cost of that transfer to an absolute minimum. 

Chairman Black. Can you tell us what that minimum is? 

Mr. Parker. Well, I could not figure out. It is different on different com¬ 
modities. The only way I could discuss that would be in its relation to other 
ports where the engineers have figured this out that we can save the ships, 
boats, and railroads more money in the transfer of cargoes at New Orleans 
than anywhere else on earth, and that is why we are putting up all this money 
to get those facilities and to get those economies. 

Chairman Black. State the proportion of cost or percentage of reduction 
that you have been able to make by virtue of these improvements? 

Mr! Parker. Why, we expect to reduce the cost of moving commerce between 
the boat and the ship by probably 75 per cent; reduce it that much. In other* 
words, in the future, with these facilities, it ought not to cost in excess of 25 
per cent of the cost before we had these facilities. 

Chairman Black. So that a river boat could be loaded or unloaded for one- 
foufth of the cost that we have heretofore paid? 

Mr. Parker. That would be in case where the commodity would be ware¬ 
housed and handled for shipment. Where the boat came alongside the ship 
there would be no charge, because the ship’s tackle would unload the stuff 
from the boat to the ship or from the ship into the boat. In other words, 
there is no terminal charge against lighterage, and that is what the boat would 
be entitled to. 

Chairman Black. The great bulk of the goods coming by boat would have 
to be warehoused in order to get a cargo large enough for ocean-going vessels? 



192 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Mr. Parker. Yes, and no, sir, too; because with the boats in dependable 
operation, freights of a certain character of commodities would be there at the 
time the ship is ready for cargo. Our system is so arranged that a ship may 
be loaded into all hatches from the land side and all hatches from the water 
side at the same time. There is complete coordination. That all depends on 
tlie river being used commercially. 

Congressman Borland. I will say, Mr. Chairman, with reference to that, 
that we will have later in the hearing a coffee importer, of Kansas City, who 
has exactly in mind how coffee importers here, probably five or six in number, 
can bunch shipments and load directly from the ocean-going vessel to barges 
and not unload them until they get to Kansas City. 

Col. Newcomer. Are the seven boats that you speak about being built at New 
Orleans self-propelled boats? 

Mr. Parker. Yes; they are prepared to take the water of the sound, but not 
to buck the current, though we sent one of those boats to St. Paul last summer 
to prove that it could be done. It moved mighty slow, but it can be done. 

Col. Newcomer. These boats built at Cincinnati, are they all self-propelled? 

Mr. Parker. Yes; and the boat being built at Jeffersonville, Ind., is the last 
word in the power barge. It will be the embodiment of every economy, so the 
engineers advise me. 

Chairman Black. Has this movement by river begun? 

Mr. Parker. The freight movement, in a way. We have had some barge 
lines started, but the equipment is not yet provided, the terminals have not yet 
been provided. They are building. The ports along the river are on the job; 
some at work and some have not voted the money yet; but you can not de¬ 
termine the value of the rivers for commercial purposes by anything that has 
gone before, because there is no equipment. It is only just now being provided. 
The boats and terminals are not yet complete; the channels are not yet ready. 

Col. Newcomer. Who is building the boats at Cincinnati? 

Mr. Parker. The Cincinnati Chamber of Commerce advised me that they 
were building the boats. I am not personally familiar with what they are 
doing. I have just simply their assurance that two boats are being built 
there. I know nothing about it of my own knowledge. We can file a little 
brief on this argument—a supplemental brief. 

Chairman Black. We will be very glad indeed to have it. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Now, Mr. Chairman, in order not to break into the 
continuity of our plan of presentation when we reach the actual commercial 
situation in Kansas City and in Kansas City territory, I am going to call at 
this time the gentlemen from Joliet who are interested in the Lakes-to-Gulf 
waterway and give them an opportunity to say what they want to say on that 
question and on the question of waterways in general. As the spokesman of 
that delegation, it is suggested that I call Mr. Fred Bennett. Is Col. Bennett here? 

Fred Bennett, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. Will you please state your name? 

Col. Bennett. Fred Bennett. 

Congressman Borland. Will you state briefly your official position, if any, 
or connection- 

Col. Bennett (interrupting). I have no special official position. I am in¬ 
terested in a number of manufacturing establishments at Joliet and have been 
very active in the work of trying to get a canal down through Illinois. 

Congressman Borland. Now, just tell us, Col. Bennett, what is the present 
status and progress of that outlet through the Drainage Canal and the Illinois 
River. 

Col. Bennett. The State of Illinois, by vote of the people, amended the 
constitution providing for a bond issue of $20,000,000. The last legislature 
appropriated $5,000,000 of that sum for the beginning of the work of the 
canalizing of the Illinois River from Starbuck up to the union of the Kankakee 
and Des Plaines Rivers, constituting the Illinois, and building an 8-foot canal 
from that point up through the city of Joliet up to the end of the Sanitary 
Canal, which comes within 2 miles of the city of Joliet, 29 miles out of Chi¬ 
cago, from Bridgeport, a suburb of Chicago. 

Congressman Borland. Has your improvement reached a point where actual 
traffic has begun? 

Col. Bennett. Well, of course, the traffic has been continuous on the old 
canal, the Illinois & Michigan Canal. That is now connected with the Sani- 



MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 193 


tary Canal and business lias been going on and one line of boats running from 
Chicago through to Iowa points by way of the Hennepin Canal. 

Congressman Borland. How deep a channel will you have? 

Col Bennett. Eight feet as a minimum. Of course, in the river at points it 
will be deeper. 

Congressman Borland. Approximately when will those improvements be 
completed ? 

Col. Bennett. Of course I could not state with any sort of definiteness. 
The president of the board is here, but he has recently been appointed. They 
have begun with the engineering work and expect to begin work on the canal 
in the spring. 

Congressman Borland. And the project has been financed? 

Col. Bennett. Oh, yes. 

Congressman Borland. What is your view of the interest of those people 
in the improvement of the Missouri River from Kansas City to its mouth and 
the other branches of the inland waterways? 

Col. Bennett. We look upon it as absolutely essential to the welfare of 
all the system that the Missouri as well as all the others should be improved. 

Congressman Borland. Your improvements will give a continuous waterway 
from Kansas City, the southwestern terminus of deep water, through to the 
Lakes and then to the Atlantic seaboard? 

Col. Bennett. Yes, sir. We have discussed this feature. I may be bringing 
coals to Newcastle, but I wish to suggest to the board that we feel that it is 
up to the engineers of the Army to devise a scheme by which the controlling 
of the water of the great Mississippi Valley shall be done for all purposes—- 
reclamation, conservation, and irrigation purposes, conservation against floods, 
and improvement for navigation, and such other purposes as may arise. It 
seems to me that that is the way the subject should be handled, as a compre¬ 
hensive scheme of handling the water in particular reaches, so that it does 
not tear up the lower sections of the river. 

In Illinois we are already feeling the effect of the Panama Canal. Our 
town is a steel and iron manufacturing town. Years ago we drove the German- 
manufactured nails out of the Empire of Japan with nails made in Joliet. 
They went across the country and across the Pacific. Now the nails go to the 
Atlantic seaboard and around by the Panama Canal. We have found that it 
is cheaper to send them that way, and I might cite a number of other in¬ 
stances with which I am not personally familiar; but I know about that. 

Congressman Borland. So you say that the life of the manufacturing in¬ 
dustries of the valley depend now on the development of inland waterways? 

Col. Bennett. That is the way we feel about it. We certainly feel that the 
development of the inland waterways is the most essential thing not only to 
the manufacturers but to the entire people of the Mississippi Valley. 

Congressman Borland. Senator Reed, have you something you wish to ask? 

Senator Reed. Tell the board, Col. Bennett, just what advantages the State 
of Illinois expects to reap from the expenditure of this $20,000,000. How are 
you to be benefited? 

Col. Bennett. Well, to begin with, Illinois is a great manufacturing State. 
Along the Illinois River from Chicago down to the Des Plaines and the Illinois 
are found a great many elements that go to make many articles of manufac¬ 
ture, especially in the vicinity of La Salle. Take out from that a distance of 
IG or 18 miles and there are found more different kinds of mineral elements 
that go into manufacturing than any other place in the world, so far as I 
know. The various clays that go into the tile and pottery work, silica for 
glass, and various kinds of rock to make the different qualities of cement, be¬ 
sides the coal which is there. 

Senator Reed. Well, now, that relates to the natural resources of your soil? 

Col. Bennett. Yes, sir. And to that should be added transportation, and 
with the added transportation we feel that we will be the center of the uni¬ 
verse, of course. [Laughter.] 

Senator Reed. Well, why will the building of this canal give you an ad¬ 
vantage? 

Col. Bennett. It gives us cheaper transportation. 

Senator Reed. How do you know that? 

Col. Bennett. Well, I know it only by observation. For instance, from 
Pittsburgh to New Orleans—that is, from the Pittsburgh district to New 
Orleans—the rate on coal is $1.23 by rail. By water it is 8 cents a ton. That 


H. Doc. 463, 64-1—^-13 



194 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


is a pretty serious difference. On coal from the Pittsburgh district to .Toliet, 
where I do business, it is $1.90 per ton. We can handle it by water just as 
soon as we get the terminal facilities, even though we pay the railway rate 
from the Pittsburgh district to the Lake Erie ports for $1.23 per ton. So it 
will make a saving of 07 cents per ton, and to a concern using two or three 
carloads a day it makes quite a saving. 

Senator Reed. What is your business? I did not catch it. 

Col. Bennett. Well, I am manufacturing matches and manufacturing gas 
and manufacturing machinery. 

Senator Reed. To what extent could the river he used if you had a regular 
line of boats? What proportion of the traffic would the river carry? 

Col. Bennett. Why, of course the coal—now, there are a great many different 
manufactured products in Joliet that would use the river. 

Senator Reed. How about wheat and corn and such things as that? 

Col. Bennett. Well, of course they would go through the other way on their 
way to Chicago, we assume. You probably would assume they would go the 
other way. We naturally assume that that traffic goes to Chicago and the 
Great Lakes, and we have maintained the Illinois-Michigan Canal on the 
strength of that grain traffic. The railroads always raise the rates in the fall 
and let them down in the spring as soon as the canal boats come along. The 
rates, for instance, I understand, used to be 11 cents from Chicago to Rock 
Island by rail in the wintertime; and the water rate from Peoria to Chicago 
was 6 cents, and they would drop down at once to the 6-cent rate in the summer. 

Senator Reed. Then the railroads would come to that 6-cent rate in the sum¬ 
mer time when you had water transportation? 

Col. Bennett. Yes, sir. 

Senator Reed. So that you figure that if you had water transportation re¬ 
stored you would make this enormous saving directly in freight rates? 

Col. Bennett. Yes, sir; absolutely. Of course, it is particularly true in 
Joliet, because the lake vessels can come right up to the north end of Joliet. 
In fact, one of the concerns I am interested in has 1,300 feet of dockage on the 
Sanitary Canal now. 

Senator Reed. Have you studied the question as to your ability to ship down 
the river and through the canal, reaching the Pacific coast and South American 
ports, and the advantages that would come from going on that route? 

Col. Bennett. Only on general principles. 

Senator Reed. Well, have you given it thought? 

Col. Bennett. Yes, sir; some thought; but I would not want to be definite on 
it because I have no figures that would satisfy myself, even. 

Senator Reed. Well, will you give the board the benefit of your consideration? 

Col. Bennett. Well, there is no doubt but what the water traffic from here on 
via New York is not natural. To New Orleans from Joliet is not so far by many 
miles as we are now shipping to New York and sending to the Pacific coast 
through the Panama Canal our manufactured goods. 

Senator Reed. What do you think is necessary to be done in order to restore 
the river traffic so that it is practicable and up to date and able to maintain 
itself and give this reduction in rate? What is necessary to do that? 

Col. Bennett. Well, I feel that there ought to be a comprehensive and uni¬ 
form consideration of all the tributaries of the Mississippi River, and. I look 
to the intelligence of the engineers of our Army to produce that, because I 
believe they know a great deal more about it than I do. 

Senator Reed. You people in Illinois have been enough interested in water 
transportation to vote $20,000,000 of bonds? 

Col. Bennett. Yes, sir. 

Senator Reed. And let me ask one further question. Did Chicago not con¬ 
tribute something like $S0,000,000 to the canal projects there? 

Col. Bennett. It is not so much as that—$50,000,000, I think. 

A Voice in the Audience. Eighty-seven million dollars. 

Col. Newcomer. I will ask you if there is any boat line operating out of the 
Illinois River now toward New Orleans? I have understood there was a 
steamer that started in recently. 

Col. Bennett. Yes; there was a boat line; and then there was—I think there 
are more lines out of Peoria that go down. They may not operate any 
farther than St. Louis; I am not certain about that. I would not want to 
state, for I don’t know of any line as such. There may be a single boat. I 
know the Swain goes up and down. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 195 


Congressman Borland. Col. Bennett, the reason that Illinois has contributed 
out of State money to the Drainage Canal and Illinois River projects is because 
they have a State-improvement scheme, and having control of that their pur¬ 
pose is to improve the Drainage Canal and the Illinois River for the purpose of 
power development of the State? 

Col. Bennett. Yes, sir. 

. * ongressman Borland. And they are putting State money in because there 
is a direct return to the State? 

Col. Bennett. ^ es ; there is a 71-foot fall between Lake Michigan and- 

Congressman Borland. And then you have got a return direct to the State 
from it? « 

Col. Bennett. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And there is no parallel between the Mississippi and 
Missouri Rivers in that respect? 

( °1- Bennett. No, sir; because between Lake Michigan and still water at 
La Salle there is something like 110 feet fall, I believe. 

A otce. But the last project has no water power connected with it. 

Col. Taylor. You speak of the Illinois and Michigan Canal. Has that canal 
been used lately as a practicable commercial proposition? 

Col. Bennett. It has lately; but there was an interim when it was not. 

Col. Taylor. Well, was it used this last year? 

Col. Bennett. There was a line of boats that used it for their barges going 
up and down. 

Col. Taylor. What depth of water has it? 

Col. Bennett. Four feet eight at a minimum. 

Col. Taylor. They actually have that now? 

Col. Bennett. They maintain that. Occasionally where creeks flow in they 
will get a deposit and they dredge it out or take it out when the canal is dry. 

Col. Newcomer. That line of boats is a through line engaged in transporting 
salt? 

Col. Bennett. Yes; well, we call it the Salt Line. They handle salt one way 
and lumber and grain the other way. We call it the Joy-Morton Line. 

Col. Winslow. T understand you to say they send coal from the Pittsburgh 
district to New Orleans at 8 cents or 80 cents? 

Col. Bennett. I understand 8 cents. 

Col. Newcomer. That is a mistake. They can not do anything like that. 

Col. Bennett. Well, with a multiplicity of barges, with one steamer behind. 
I know the difference between Joliet and Pittsburgh absolutely, because I am 
in the business; and I understand that is true with reference to that rail rate 
of $1.28 to New Orleans. T do not mean to say that it is true to-day, hut within 
the last two or three years, that they handle it at 8 cents a ton by the use of 
big flotillas of barges, using one steamer behind as a guide, and that they put 
it down in New Orleans for 8 cents. 

Col. Newcomer. Well, that is a mistake. 

Col. Bennett. Well, I apologize if I am mistaken, hut I do not think I am. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. I will call on Mr. E. L. Platt, of St. Joseph. 

E. L. Platt, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. I understand your delegation have to leave at 4 
o’clock or thereabouts. Would you like to he heard now? 

Mr. Platt. I would like to read a short brief that we have, prepared by the 
Commerce Club, setting forth concrete facts, which will not take me five 
minutes to read—just a short brief, and I would like to read it. 

Congressman Borland. Just a moment. I will ask you to state your full 
name. 

Mr. Platt. E. L. Platt. 

Congressman ‘Borland. And you represent the Commerce Club of St. Joseph? 

Mr. Platt. Yes, sir. Mr. W. E. Spratt, president^of the club, was to come, 
but it has been impossible for him to do so, and he'has asked be to read this 
brief. 

Congressman Borland. I understand there are nine in your delegation, and 
you can add to the records their names. 

Mr. Platt. Well, you have a list of them, Mr. Borland. 

(Mr. Platt here read the paper referred to.) 

Mr. Platt. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that coming down here we had 
with us the traffic manager of one of our large wholesale houses, and I ex- 



196 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

plained to him this saving of freight was 20 per cent, and he informed me 
that if he could get a 10 days’ service out of St. Louis and a saving of 20 
per cent on the present freight rate, his firm alone would save over $10,000 
a year. Now, that is one item from one firm. I likewise talked with the 
treasurer of another wholesale house, who confirms that statement in a general 
way, and said that each one of those houses could save from $12,000 to $15,000 
a year on a 20 per cent saving in freight if we had 10-day delivery out of 
St. Louis. 

Now, this is not in the report, but I believe it is apropos to say that while 
this commission is supposed to act technically upon this question from a 
navigation standpoint, I think the protection of the river banks and the con¬ 
servation of the ground is a problem that you people have got to enter into 
in settling this question. I believe that public opinion in our section is crys- 
talizing around a definite propaganda of bank protection and conservation; 
and I believe, as one of our party said, that the value of the wheat and corn 
that has been wasted by going down this river in 10 or 15 years would pay 
for the entire project. Now, those matters are not directly pertinent, but they 
are indirectly pertinent and questions which I believe this board is going to 
consider. I am not going to dwell on that point, but I think it is vital for this 
board to consider the question of saving these banks and saving this land, 
and, though I will not say anything further, I wish to assure you that I hope 
it will be brought about. 

Congressman Borland. Any questions that the board would like to ask? 

Chairman Black. I believe that is all. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. I desire to call J. W. Brockett, of St. Joseph, who is a 
member of the St. Joseph delegation, but I believe he is not present just now, 
and I will ask Mr. McVan, of Omaha, to take the stand. 

E. J. McVan, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. State your name, please. 

'Mr. McVan. E. J. McVan. 

Congressman Borland. You are the traffic commissioner of the Commercial 
Club of Omaha? 

Mr. McVan. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. How long have you been connected with and what 
has been your experience in the line of traffic work? 

Mr. McVan. I have been directly connected with the various commercial 
organizations of Omaha for the past 11 years in traffic capacities, and prior 
to that time I spent about 17 years in the railroad business. 

Congressman Borland. Are you employed by the commercial bodies there 
as their expert traffic man? 

Mr. McVan. As their traffic man. 

Congressman Borland. That is your profession, is it? 

Mr. McVan. My profession is that of the law, but I have some knowledge 
of traffic matters. 

Congressman Borland. Your work in connection with the commercial bodies 
up there is looking after these traffic matters? 

Mr. McVan. I look after their traffic matters. 

Congressman Borland. And you are familiar, then, with the traffic condi¬ 
tions of the Missouri Valley, including Kansas City, Omaha, and St. Joseph? 

Mr. McVan. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And you are familiar with the effect upon railroad 
rates of water competition, actual and potential? 

Mr. McVan. Yes; in a general way. 

Congressman Borland. I would be glad to have you, not being an expert 
along that line myself—I would be glad to have you present in your own way 
in a connected manner the interest that the commercial bodies there have in 
the question of river navigation and its effect upon the rail rates, particularly 
in view of the completion of the Panama Canal. 

Mr. McVan. If the board please, I came here to present to you such facts 
as we had available, with reference to the actual commerce now existing at 
Omaha, and to give you such conclusions as we might of the potential com¬ 
merce that might be offered in the river was made navigable from Omaha 
south. There is now no commerce on the river between Omaha and Kansas 
City, therefore all our information is as to the facts we have been able to 
ascertain of the potential commerce, because there is no actual commerce. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 197 


In a. recent proceeding before the Interstate Commerce Commission there 
was introduced as an exhibit by one of the railroads statistics showing the 
number of cars moving from various Missouri River points to the East and 
to the Southeast, and from that exhibit, which was, if I recall it, introduced 
by Mr. Kimball, of Kansas City, and the proceeding in which it was introduced 
was Investigation and Suspension Docket No. 555, that is the Interstate Com¬ 
merce Commission serial number—from that we expect to show that the total 
of the various commodities, including wheat, corn, oats, rye, barley, flour, mill 
products, backing-house products other than fresh meats, such as lard, tallow, 
and other similar packing-house products; hay, broom corn, zinc smelter, and 
salt, was 43.667 carloads, the statement having been made up on the number 
of carloads and not on the number of tons. 

Now, in regard to that statement I want to say that there appears to be a 
radical discrepancy between the number of cars reported by this exhibit as 
having been forwarded from Omaha and the number of cars that were actually 
forwarded on the report of the Omaha Grain Exchange, which is compiled 
from railroad sources. The latter report of the Omaha Grain Exchange is for 
the period the calendar year 1914 and it shows shipped to all points from 
Omaha 67,000,000 bushels, in round numbers, of the grain mentioned in Mr. 
Kimball’s exhibit. 

I reduced the number of million bushels of corn to carloads, based on the 
computation contained in the same record, approximately 33 tons to the car, and 
that would show that the amount of corn forwarded, according to Mr. Kimball’s 
report, was 2,907 cars, which was not more than 10 per cent of the actual 
amount forwarded. In other words, in round numbers, there were 32,000,000 
bushels of corn shipped out of Omaha during the calendar year 1914. A num¬ 
ber of those cars went through to destination and were probably not included 
in Mr. Kimball’s report, but not any considerable percentage, and therefore I 
am at a loss to understand the great discrepancy in these figures, as given in 
that report, of the tonnage forwarded by all railroads, and these figures 
obtained from the same source and reported by the Omaha grain men. 

I may say that I spent three years as secretary of the Omaha Grain Ex¬ 
change, and am responsible for compiling their reports, and am familiar with 
the source of their information, and I think it is very correct. 

Therefore, it may be stated that there is a potential tonnage for the water 
route from Omaha, if it were possible to transport it by water, of 67,000,000 
bushels. Reducing that to carloads, figuring 1,000 bushels as a car, we would 
have 67,000 carloads shipped out of Omaha last year, of a character of com¬ 
modity that is peculiarly and has always been peculiarly a commodity carried 
by water. It is susceptible of being handled in such a manner as to make 
it a very desirable water trade. And that is one item. I give this explana¬ 
tion to explain my doubt of the correctness of the 43,500 cars reported by Mr. 
Kimball, and I think it is away below the total actually shipped from that 
point. 

And I may say this further, speaking for the State of Nebraska' and with 
respect to the tonnage shipped from Omaha. Of course the State of Nebraska 
is a great grain-producing State, and there are many millions of bushels of 
grain shipped from Nebraska which would be available in any computation 
of water-borne traffic—potential traffic—which would not go through the city 
of Omaha or be handled in its markets. 

For example, this 32,000,000 bushels of corn shipped out of Omaha would 
represent perhaps one-third of the corn produced and shipped out of the State 
during the same year. We estimate that perhaps 25 to 35 per cent' of the 
corn shipped out of the State is handled through the Omaha market and dealt 
in upon that market, so that I would like to have you bear in mind all the time 
that in giving figures for the city of Omaha we do not exhaust the possibility 
of potential traffic that would be available if we could get an opportunity to 
transport it by water, and that the actual figures of what tonnage would be 
available is very much larger, by reason of the entrance into our cities of other 
markets like St! Louis, Chicago, Nashville, and Memphis for the direct purchase 
of grain. Even Kansas City is able to come into Nebraska and purchase grain, 
even some kinds of grain on* the Omaha market, and ship large quantities to 
Kansas City. So that the Omaha shipments do not exhaust the potential 
shipments of grain by any means. 

The next item we took up was one which was also made available to us 
from the same source—that is, the testimony of the railroads in this proceed¬ 
ing of which I have given the number—that is, the soft-coal tonnage, the 


198 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


bituminous coal tonnage moving to Omaha. And there, in saying Omaha, I 
include South Omaha, which is now a part of the municipality of Omaha, and 
the city of Council Bluffs, Iowa, which is just across the river from Omaha, and 
which is a part of the commercial city, although politically divided from it. 
We have much the same situation there that exists at cities on either side 
of a river which are dealt with in all railroad computations as a unit, and 
the figures as to which are always produced as a unit, the rates being the same, 
and they being treated as an Omaha group. 

The soft-coal tonnage coming into Omaha and Council Bluffs, based on the 
estimate of the railroads themselves, was 620,100 tons. That coal is produced 
at the mines in southern Kansas, central Missouri, and in southern Illinois, 
except for a very small amount which originates at the Iowa and Wyoming 
mines; that amount, however, is not such a percentage of the whole that it 
need he considered. It may be said that the coal originates in southern 
Illinois, central Missouri, and southeastern Kansas, and based on the ex¬ 
perience of handling coal from the mining section upon the Lakes, we antici¬ 
pate there would be do difficulty in securing that traffic to the water, if we 
had water transportation for it. That is 620,000 tons. 

We also had a proceeding before the commission in which the railroads gave 
figures on the amount of hardwood lumber, which is used very largely in 
Omaha and which originates in Arkansas, Missouri, Louisiana, Texas, and a 
small extent in Mississippi, which came to Omaha. The total of that tonnage 
forwarded to Omaha during the year covered by the estimate, 1914, was close 
to 20,000 tons. Nearly all of that would be available for water transportation 
because of the fact of its being produced in the lower Mississippi Valley and 
usually close to navigable streams. 

In addition to hardwood lumber there is a large amount of yellow-pine 
lumber bought and sold in Omaha, and from the same railroad source, covering 
the same period as hardwood lumber, there came to Omaha during the same 
time 72,500 tons of yellow-pine lumber. The bulk of that lumber originated 
in southern Arkansas, eastern Texas (the extreme eastern part), and north¬ 
western Louisiana. This also would be available for water transportation if 
water navigation were possible. 

In connection with that lumber, and our feeling about the necessity for ob¬ 
taining water transportation on it, I may say in passing that during my ex¬ 
perience in connection with rates, I know that a very considerable tonnage of 
this yellow-pine lumber was transported from the points of production to 
Omaha. We will fix the period as 1905, at 18 cents a hundred. The present 
rate on that lumber is 25 cents a hundred. I am now engaged in defending 
a proceeding brought by the railroads to increase that to 26^ cents a hundred 
so that within 10 years we have had an increase in that particular rate from 
the actual figure of 18 cents (although the open-tariff figure was 23 cents, and 
I say that so that I may not be contradicted by some one referring to the 
tariff) to 25 cents, the present rate. And if we are not successful in the pro¬ 
ceeding we are now defending, which I have referred to, the rate will be 26£ 
cents a hundred. 

Just to recapitulate briefly, the outgoing tonnage on Mr. Kimball’s statement 
amounts to 43,500 cars, with the qualification I put on it; and the inbound ton¬ 
nage, made up in large part of bituminous coal, aggregated 12,700 tons. And 
I want to say in that connection that these figures take no account of the 
movement of iron and steel from the Pittsburgh district and from Chicago-rate 
points, which is very large, and much of which could be handled by water. 
We have no figures on that later than 1906, and those figures were contained 
in a statement which also showed Kansas City and St. Joseph, and we deemed 
it best to submit those figures to Kansas City and to permit of their being 
included in the Kansas City brief. So that you will have before you in that 
brief the figures including Omaha’s receipts on all classes of merchandise for 
the year 1906, and I would like to have you read those figures with this idea 
in mind, that during the 10 years past since those figures were made up, every 
business that was represented in that tonnage has grown very largely, so that 
you might put a considerable percentage of increase upon those figures and be 
within the bounds of reason. 

Now, I have been asked the question, if I recollect it correctly, about the 
effect of the present situation, particularly with reference to "the Panama 
Canal. Was that your question, Mr: Borland? 

Congressman Borland. Yes; that was the question. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 199 

Mr. Mc\ an. I may say with respect to that that I am saying this more from 
a consideration of a traffic experience and an experience with rates and tariffs 
and commerce conditions which cause railroad tariffs to be made, rather than 
from any actual facts that I may be able to present to you, so that you must 
take it as taken from observation rather than statements of fact. 

The immediate effect of the opening of the Panama Canal was, of course, as 
all of you gentlemen know, to put in service between the Atlantic seaboard and 
the Pacific seaboard a material increased tonnage of vessels, and also, as a 
matter of course, to produce rates that were lower than any rates that had 
been offered before, and without the objection that there was to the previous 
freighting facilities, which were afforded mainly by the American & Hawaiian 
Steamship Co., operating over the Tehuantepec route, which made necessary 
a transfer of shipments en route. So that when the Panama Canal was 
opened they had that line of transit between the Atlantic seaboard and the 
Pacific seaboard, an increased number of vessels, and a material lessening of 
the water rates offered for large consignments, in fact, upon nearly all manu¬ 
factured articles that might be transported by steamship. 

In order that you may understand the situation, the transcontinental rail¬ 
roads -concerned immediately made application to the Interstate Commerce 
Commission, under the fourth section of the interstate-commerce law, for the 
exercise of the right to reduce their rates from the Atlantic seaboard to the 
Pacific seaboard to meet that competition, which law places that in the discre¬ 
tion of the commission to grant. They immediately applied for that right to 
reduce the rate and there have been ever since hearings in progress on that 
subject, and one or two decisions have been made, and a number of those 
tariffs have gone into effect, so that to-day, under the new conditions, we here 
in the center of the country have for the first time a situation where the rates 
by the rail lines, for the longer haul of 1,000 or 1,500 miles to the Atlantic 
seaboard and thence by water transportation through the canal to the Pacific 
coast ,are less than they are from the intervening cities in the valley of the 
Missouri River particularly by all rail to the Pacific coast. That is not only 
true of one section in the West, but of California, Washington, mid Oregon, 
and we feel that more upon the eastbound commodities than the west¬ 
bound commodities, because they are directly handled by our nu.chants and 
distributed by them to the large territory surrounding us. 

The making of these rates to the Atlantic seaboard has, of course, affected the 
rates to the Gulf ports. The making of lower rates to Gulf ports—New Orleans, 
for example—than to Chicago, Kansas City, and Omaha enables the laying 
down of these products in the hands of our competitors at much less freight 
cost than we can do by direct rail transportation. And of course there is a re¬ 
distribution of the rates, where they enjoy that situation, and we feel the effect 
of that, and, summing it all up, it amouns to this, that we must have river trans¬ 
portation, and we have felt in Omaha, after studying the situation very care¬ 
fully, that our only hope of relief from the situation produced by the opening 
of the Panama Canal is the resumption of traffic upon the Missouri Jtiver, so 
that we may obtain the benefit of water transportation over that route in con¬ 
nection with the water transportation to the canal. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. McVan, right at this point, not to interrupt your 
line of thought, the Panama Canal was opened the 1st of August, 1914, and has 
now been open a little more than a year, but part of that time it has been 
closed on account of slides. Also during that year there has prevailed the 
war in Europe, which has materially reduced the number of vessels and the 
tonnage available for that water transportation, and the close of the war in 
Europe will release a large tonnage which will be available for coastwise trans¬ 
portation through the canal. In other words, the acute situation from the open¬ 
ing of the canal has not come, even though the canal is open, but it will come 
with the restoration of peace and the increase of tonnage moving through the 
canal. Is not that the fact about the matter? 

Mr. McVan. Yes; that is a necessary deduction from the facts. Of course, 
what I have had to say has been with reference to such observations as we 
have given to normal conditions, and I have not had in mind any abnormal con¬ 
ditions such as the war. It is true that last year we were confronted with this 
situation of the reduction of rates, and, notwithstanding the present abnormal 
situation as to the number of bottoms available for tonnage, we have the situ¬ 
ation presented by the insistent demand of the railroads for protection against 
the rates quoted by the boats, even though there may not be boats enough to 
carry the traffic. 


200 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


I was in Chicago about 10 days ago at the proceedings under the fourth sec¬ 
tion of the interstate commerce act, where the railroads were insisting on 
additional authority from the commission to still further reduce many rates 
which they had theretofore reduced materially, including particularly, as I 
recall it, a rate of 55 cents, which they purposed to put in effect from the Pitts¬ 
burgh district to the Pacific coast on all of a long line of iron and steel articles 
manufactured in that great district. That is without reference to any possible 
condition at the present time as to ships available for tonnage. That condition 
is a condition of rail rates which the railroads are insisting is forced upon them 
by the quotation of rates by existing ship lines, and they are asking authority 
to make still lower rates than the commission has allowed them to make. 

Congressman Borland. Your point is that the railroads are now asking the 
Interstate Commerce Commission to allow them to meet the condition brought 
about by cheap carriage through the Panama Canal ? 

Mr. McVan. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And that, if the tonnage through the canal is in¬ 
creased by the close of the war in Europe, that acute condition will be in¬ 
creased ? 

Mr. McVan. Yes; the railroads have now been granted by the commission 
a large measure of relief by being allowed to reduce many rates, and yet 
they are now asking for the right to make further reduction to meet a condi¬ 
tion which has arisen since the first condition arose. 

Congressman Borland. I understand it to be a fact that on a large tonnage 
of surplus agricultural products produced in Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska 
there is a possibility of its moving eastward to market, including Kansas City? 

Mr. McVan. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. Some may move eastward through Omaha, some 
through Atchison, and some through Leavenworth? 

Mr. McVan. Yes; the rates are all so adjusted that that may be done. 

Congressman Borland. And the rates are so adjusted that the surplus agri¬ 
cultural products between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains have 
a choice of gateways crossing the Mississippi River? 

Mr. McVan. Yes ; that is true. 

Congressman Borland. And that being true, the reduction or regulation of 
rates between the Mississippi River and Kansas City would have an effect on 
all tonnage originating between the Mississippi River and the Rocky Moun¬ 
tains moving eastward? 

Mr. McVan. Yes, sir; it would, unquestionably. 

Congressman Borland. Have you given in any detail the present rail facili¬ 
ties and their adequacy to handle the growing traffic of the agricultural States? 

Mr. McVan. No; I have not gone into that, and I want to say a word about 
that. 

In addition to my traffic experience of 11 years, with the actual handling of 
traffic problems in this part of the country, I have been, as I have said, a 
railroad employee for 16 or 17 years before that, and have been during those 
years in active touch with the handling of traffic and the conditions arising 
from time to time during that period. And I want to say, and I can not empha¬ 
size it too much, that I honestly believe, based upon that long observation, that 
the railroads have about reached the limit of the tonnage that they can handle 
with their present transportation facilities. And they have themselves prac¬ 
tically admitted that is true, especially in this proceeding I have referred to 
which was practically a demand of all the western railroads for a further large 
increase in rates in order to permit them to get additional money to bolster 
up their credit, as they said. I am trying to make this presentation as much 
like theirs as I can, and I think I am giving it just as presented by them to 
that commission; they wanted more money in order to bolster up their credit, 
in order to make those extensions to their present transportation machinery 
that they regard in their judgment as absolutely necessary to care for the in¬ 
crease in commerce which they see already in sight. 

Congressman Borland. Now, right on that point I want to ask you this ques¬ 
tion. You have probably received, through your office, a circular of the Inter¬ 
state Commerce Commission, dated October 7, 1915, in which they speak of the 
annually recurring car shortage in this territory? 

Mr. McVan. Yes, I have received that. 

Congressman Borland. That circular of the Interstate Commerce Commission 
just referred to is set out at page 98 of the brief, and I call the attention of the 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 201 


board to that circular, in which they advise shippers in this territory to release 
cars at the earliest possible moment and not to hold them, in order to facilitate 
the movement of commerce. 

Mr. McVan. That is, in effect, the essence of their suggestion. It is a sug¬ 
gestion, and not an order. 

Congressman Borland. But it indicates the situation, which is that of a car 
shortage for the handling of commodities in this district? 

Mr. McVan. That is .true; and that is rather singular, in view of the fact that 
business is not by any means at high tide just now. But there is being felt a 
sufficient car shortage in this section that the commission has sent out this 
warning, which, by the way, is an annual warning. They have occasion every 
year to send it out, and the occasion of their sending it out is the receipt by 
the commission of large numbers of complaints from people who are not able to 
get cars for handling goods. 

Chairman Black. Was that not caused in a large measure by the use of cars 
for storage? 

Mr. McVan. No, not entirely. There is in effect a very drastic demurrage 
charge for keeping cars over the free time of 48 hours, and while there are 
some who would rather pay the charge than unload, there has been a persistent 
effort to cut down what is known as car detention, and the last figures I saw on 
that showed a very small amount of car detention. I do not think any part of 
the car shortage in this district could be ascribed to that. I think two facts 
have had to do with that; first, the railroads, in anticipation of a very large 
movement of grain this fall, stored empties generally west of the Mississippi 
River—an unusually large number. On account of the conditions—market con¬ 
ditions—which had nothing to do with railroad matters, the movement of that 
grain has been delayed to an unusual degree, so that there is probably a great 
number of cars at that end for which there has been no loading for the East, 
and that has produced the stringency in the number of cars coming to the West. 
So I say that the car shortage has come from the unusual movement of cars to 
the West to provide for the movement of grain, which has been delayed. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. McVan, it is necessary and will be necessary in 
the immediate future for the railroads in this immediate territory to increase 
their facilities? 

Mr. McVan. It will undoubtedly be so, unless some relief is obtained for the 
railroads by the use of other transportation. 

Congressman Borland. And most of the railroads that are now single track 
will in the next decade have to be double tracked? 

Mr. McVan. Yes, that is true. The Chicago Northwestern is now double 
tracked from Chicago to Omaha, and the Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul are 
making a double track, and other railroads are going to. 

Congressman Borland. And that capital for increasing the facilities of the 
railroads must ultimately be paid for by the shippers? 

Mr. McVan. Well, they must ship enough to justify that expenditure of 
capital. 

Congressman Borland. So we are discussing whether the Government shall 
expend $13,000,000 to complete this project under way, or whether the railroad 
facilities are now adequate, or can be made adequate for the use of the people; 
that is one of the propositions involved? 

Mr. McVan. Yes, that is one of the propositions involved, and it has seemed 
to me, from my observation of the situation, that the better solution would not 
be the solution proposed by the railroads in their recent proceeding before the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, namely, a general advance in their rates to 
procure an additional revenue, to give them additional credit, but it would be a' 
provision for a similar separation of tonnage in this country that there is in the 
old country, and by that means to relieve the railroads in their present plight of 
handling the rough commodities, such as the raw materials, the heavy freight— 
ores, coal, and so forth—and allow them to use their present machinery to a 
more unlimited capacity in handling the finished products, merchandise, and so 
forth. I think that would be infinitely better than the scheme put up by the 
railroads—the enlargement of their credit for obtaining money by increasing 
our freight bill throughout the United States. 

Congressman Borland. On that point you are aware, of course, that the car 
shortage and the heavy movement of traffic eastbound from this territory 
comes at crop-moving time, when the supplies of surplus crops move eastward 
to market? 

Mr. McVan. Yes, I am aware of that. 


202 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Congressman Borland. And that that is the time when the river channel of 
transportation is at its lowest stage as to water, and that is when the improve¬ 
ments on the river would be absolutely necessary, and that is the time when the 
railroads would have the most relief, if the channel of the river was made 
permanent? 

Mr. McVan. Yes, sir; not only because that traffic is eastbound at that time, 
but the westbound movement of the fuel supply for the winter is taking place 
at the same time. 

-Congressman Borland. And at that particular time the river is usually at its 
worst stage—in its natural condition—and needs a permanent 6-foot channel 
at that time of the year? 

Mr. McVan. I accept your statement on that. I am not much of a riverman. 

Congressman Borland. We are familiar with those conditions down here and 
will cover that in another way. If there are any further points not yet covered 
you may proceed. 

Mr. McVan. I think I have covered the ground as fully as may be. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Sangster, who is the traffic commissioner of the 
Kansas City Commercial Club, wants to ask a technical question of you. 

Mr. Sangster. Mr. McVan, with respect to the traffic along the upper reaches 
of the Missouri, along the line of the testimony you have given with regard 
to lumber, grain, and so forth, I want to ask you, from your experience with 
the Omaha Grain Exchange, as secretary, and your long association with 
traffic matters in this territory—in the Missouri River territory—whether it is 
not a fact that a very large percentage of the coarse-grain movements to the 
Kansas City grain market do not come from a territory—it comes through 
Omaha and Council Bluffs, probably—but from a territory from which the 
rates are based upon-Omaha? 

Mr. McVan. That is true. 

Mr. Sangster. Would you accept, and can you affirm the testimony I gave 
in the western rate lines hearing, I. C. C., Docket No. 555, that over 50 per 
cent of the coarse grain received at the Kansas City market, including corn 
and oats especially, come from the territory in Nebraska, western Iowa, and 
South Dakota, and from Omaha and Council Bluffs where it had been pre¬ 
viously concentrated? 

Mr. McVan. That had been previously concentrated at Omaha? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes; from those markets, and from that whole territory upon 
which the rate is based on Omaha? 

Mr. McVan. Is it your question that 50 per cent of the share of Kansas City 
2 omes from there? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes, of coarse grain; can you affirm that? 

Mr. McVan. Speaking in a general way, I would say that it is reasonable 
to believe that the percentage was greater, for the reason that the production 
of coarse grain, the surplus production of coarse grain of that section, is in 
a sort of natural funnel, with its small end at Omaha, and that being where 
the flow of that product necessarily comes as a matter of rail handling, and it 
would move through Omaha and Council Bluffs. Whether so large a percent¬ 
age of the Kansas City receipts are actually marketed and rehandled there, I 
could not say, but I will say this, that I think fully 50 per cent or more of such 
products would pass through a funnel formed by those railroads that concen¬ 
trate at Omaha and Council Bluffs. 

Mr. Sangster. Just a little more to the point; is it not a fact that there are 
extraordinary large elevator storage facilities at Omaha and Council Bluffs for 
.the handling of grain? 

Mr. McVan. There is more than 7,000,000 bushels elevator storage capacity. 

Mr. Sangster. And is it not true that those facilities are largely owned by 
concerns having line elevators along the railroads, forming a sort of tributary 
through which this grain is drawn to Omaha and Council Bluffs? 

Mr. McVan. To some extent that is true. 

Mr. Sangster. All of which would tend to concentrate the grain at Omaha? 

Mr. McVan. Yes. I do not want to be understood, Mr. Sangster, as declining 
to accept your statement. I think it is measurably true, but I simply want to 
differentiate, in my answer, between the grain that is rehandled on the Omaha 
market, actually handled there, and the grain that comes through without such 
handling. 

Mr. Sangster. Is it not true that there is a big movement in grain handled 
both ways, destined to Kansas City, and shipped out of here? 

Mr. McVan. Yes. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 203 

Mr. Sangster. Roth direct from the railroads in that territory to Kansas 
City, and also handled through Omaha and Council Bluffs’ 

Mr. McVan. Yes. 

Mi. Sangster. And is it not true also that the rates upon all grain are based 
01 \r llia !a ’ northern Nebraska, South Dakota, and western Iowa? 

Mr. McVan. As to inbound rates to Kansas City, I think that is measurably 
true. 

Mr. Sangster. So the rate from Omaha to Kansas City would lend itself 
naturally to the traffic that is made free there in a transportation sense destined 
to Kansas City? 

Mr. McY an. Yes: all grain moving from Omaha to Kansas City would be 
potential water traffic, if there was water traffic. 

Congressman Borland. Senator Reed, have you anv questions to ask the wit¬ 
ness ? 

Senator Reed. No. 

Mr. McVan. I just want to add a little in answer to a question that some 
member of the board asked of a previous witness as to the ordinary rail time 
between the Mississippi River and Kansas City. It is ordinarily delivered upon 
the second morning after receipt by the railroad. For example, freight leaving 
the Mississippi River on Monday evening would ordinarily be delivered at the 
Missouri River on Wednesday; that is approximately correct merchandise time 
and might be fairly relied upon except under extraordinary conditions. From 
Chicago, you would have to add something to that. 

Congressman Borland. On that point, what would you say about the state¬ 
ments of Kansas City shippers who buy their goods in the East, that come from 
east of the Illinois and Indiana line, that it has taken as long as 12 or 15 days 
for it to come to Kansas City? 

Mr. McVan. That is unquestionably true because there would be many reasons 
why the transit of those goods would be interrupted, which would not apply in 
the other case. 

Congressman Borland. So you are not taking into consideration the move¬ 
ment of general carload through shipments from the East? 

Mr. McVan. No, sir; only such freight as is tendered to the railroads at St. 
Louis and destined to Kansas City. The business east of the Indiana and 
Illinois State line may, for example, go into the Chicago yards and stay around 
there four or five days, and I do not have such shipments in mind. I was just 
voluntarily answering the question. 

(Witness excused.) 

Chairman Black. I will make this announcement at this time: The board now 
expects to sit continuously until 0 o’clock and then take a recess until S 
o’clock, and have an evening session beginning at 8 o’clock and continuing as 
long as we can keep awake; and then start in at 9 o’clock in the morning. 

Congressman Borland. These gentlemen of the Ray County delegation must 
leave at 6 o’clock, and we will now call Mr. Mayes with regard to the interests 
of Ray County. 

Jewell Mayes, being called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. Your name is Jewell Mayes? 

Mr. Mayes. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. You are secretary of the State Board of Agriculture 
of Missouri? 

Mr. Mayes. Yes; and I speak as a citizen of Ray County. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the board of engineers of the War Depart¬ 
ment, in response to the request of the local engineer in charge, Lieut. Col. 
Herbert Deakyne, for specific statements in this hearing, I beg leave to state, 
rather to read, specific statements containing certain definite figures as to 
Ray County, of which I am proud to be a citizen, the third county from the 
west down the river on the north side of the river. And I will read, Mr. 
Chairman, to the point. 

(Mr. Mayes here reads paper, which i-s filed with the secretary of the board.) 

Col. Winslow. Has the improvement of the river so far done had any effect 
upon property values, upon the land values in the neighborhood? 

Mr. Mayes. My observation is that it has developed in agricultural pro¬ 
duction, its development in agricultural production has increased, and the 
logical value of land is based upon its productive value. As the river is im¬ 
proved, making it possible for the owners to levee and drain their land, they 
have done so, and that has increased production. I could not say that the 
improvement of the river has actually increased the value of the land, but 


204 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH, 

it has resulted in increased production of agricultural products, and the land, 
of course, finally increases in value. 

Col. Winslow. Then, as an indirect result, it does increase its value? 

Mr. Mayes. Yes. 

Col. Winslow. We had estimates given before lunch by one gentleman as 
to the increase of land value because of river improvement in the neighbor¬ 
hood of the Osage. Can you give an estimate of the amount of increase in 
the value of the land in Ray County if this system were carried out? 

Mr. Mayes. If this system were carried out, it is my opinion that it will 
multiply by two or three—it will multiply by two the agricultural production 
of those 40,000 acres. Now, I do not believe it is within my rights to say 
with safety that the large landowners would increase their holdings, but I 
might say that it is my belief from my observation in Missouri that land— 
real estate—values are based normally upon their productive value. 

Col. Winslow. Then you could not give us any estimate at all of the in¬ 
crease in the value of this 40,000 acres if this system were carried out? 

Mr. Mayes. As I have stated before, I will say that it will multiply by two 
- its agricultural productiveness. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Mayes, I will ask you one question: You are 
secretary of the State Board of Agriculture of Missouri? 

Mr. Mayes. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. What has been the growth of the building of levees 
by private landowners between Kansas City and St. Louis since 1910? 

Mr. Mayes. Down the river I believe that the increase since 1910, from my 
observation—I have seen the official figures, but will not try to quote them. 

Congressman Borland. You do not know the official figures? 

Mr. Mayes. I do not remember them, but the increase in the territory I 
have in mind since 1910 in the improved section is 100 per cent. 

Congressman Borland. You refer to the drainage district? 

Mr. Mayes. Yes; and in some counties 500 per cent increase. 

Congressman Borland. In some parts of Missouri those drainage districts 
are built by local money without the aid of the Federal Government? 

Mr. Mayes. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. Is it not true that the building of those levees is 
predicated entirely upon the fixing of the channel of the river for the purposes 
of navigation by the Army engineers? 

Mr. Mayes. It is predicated upon the proposition that the channel was 
fixed, and the fixing of doubtful channels is predicated entirely on the work 
of the Army engineers of the Federal Government. 

Congressman Borland. And as the channel is revetted downstream by these 
improvements, securing a permanent 6-foot channel, that will permit the land- 
owner to form his levee district and build levees, and they will do that? 

Mr. Mayes. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And if the river is abandoned, the improvement of 
the river is abandoned as contemplated in this report, will the river in a few 
years, by changes in its current, unregulated, sweep away most of this levee 
construction? 

Mr. Mayes. Yes; most of this levee construction will be swept away that 
I have in mind. 

Congressman Borland. Do you know how much is invested in levee con¬ 
struction in the State of Missouri? 

Mr. Mayes. I hesitate to state the official figures, but it is something like 
$1,944,000. 

Congressman Borland. Is that approximately the correct amount invested 
in levee construction between Kansas City and St. Louis? 

Mr. Mayes. I have seen the figures; it is something more than $1,000,000. 

Chairman Black. Opposite Jefferson City for some time the channel of the 
river has been fixed and permanent. As we went down there we saw large 
sections of land apparently reclaimed' from the river bed by reason of the 
improvement of the river. Do you know how many acres have been added 
in that section of arable lands due to such improvements? 

Mr. Mayes. Mr. Chairman, I have this in mind. I could easily answer that 
question by calculating. Going up and down there often, I know there are 
thousands of acres of land, perhaps, reclaimed. And also, Mr. Chairman, I 
happen to know at this time that plans are well under way for the building 
of permanent levees to guarantee the reclamation of that land to which you 
refer and which I have in mind. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 205 


Chairman Black. Have you any idea of the increase of taxable values along 
that reach of the river? 

Mr. Mayes. Mr. Chairman, allow me to answer that rather indirectly, that 
not until the improvement of the Missouri River is an accomplished fact will 
there be an increase in taxable values as a necessary thing. The taxable 
values have not been developed and have not been established by the county 
courts, because there is that shadow hanging over it yet, but great increases 
are in project. 

Chairman Black. There are some reaches that have been reclaimed for 20 
years, and some cultivated farm lands along the reaches opposite Jefferson City, 
where the river has been permanently fixed for about that period. I believe 
I am correct in that, am I not, Mr. Mayes? 

Mr. Mayes. That is an area of land I pass on the train only, and I can not 
speak of it officially or with authority, and this might not be an answer, but 
I might state that the ownership of river-bottom land has so much to do in 
many cases with what the river bottom has done in the way of land reclamation; 

I might say that for all down the Missouri, in answer to your question, that if 
we had such men as Mr. Offutt, or the Brun brothers, or the Whitman boys and 
others like them that those levees would be built, but the land has been in the 
hands of speculators opposite Jefferson City for many years, but now it is get¬ 
ting in the hands of people who are going ahead and protecting their land with 
levees. 

Ubairman Black. I saw no levees in the reaches we passed. 

Mr. Mayes. You will find communities where your statement is literally 
correct, and in many cases it is because of the fear of the shadow that is over 
Hie river and over the land. 

Chairman Black. But there is an increase in taxable value? 

Mr. Mayes. There is an increase. Allow me to speak indirectly on that point, 
along those river bottoms. I have investigated that matter, and I will say to 
you that the increase has not gotten upon the tax books because of that shadow 
of uncertainty even in the levee districts. There is some improvement, but the 
increase in selling value is uncertain, and the increase has not been made but in 
few cases upon the tax books as yet, because, Mr. Chairman, we beg to say, 
legally, “ The title is not yet clear from the hands of the river.” 

Congressman Borland. Your office does not have supervision over the levee 
boards, does it, Mr. Mayes? 

Mr. Mayes. No ; the drainage commissioner. 

Congressman Borland. I was going to ask you to put in the record the official 
statement, but I will not do it. 

Mr. Mayes. Mr. Chairman, I would rather not. I have not myself been in the 
river and drainage work for years, and I do not want to make any official state¬ 
ment, because it is not within my right. 

(Witness excused.) 

J. W. Brockett, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. Will you please state your name for the record? 

Mr. Brockett. J. W. Brockett. 

Congressman Borland. You are a citizen of St. Joseph, Mo.? 

Mr. Brockett. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. Are you connected with the commercial bodies there? 

Mr. Brockett. No, sir; I am not. 

Congressman Borland. What views have you to express on this matter? 

Mr. Brockett. Well, having had, I suppose, the same notice in regard to this 
hearing that a good many other citizens have had- 

Congressman Borland (interrupting). Before you start in I would like to 
have the board understand your relation to the interests there. You are an 
engineer, are you not? 

Mr. Brockett. Why, I claim to be; yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. State fully your business and your standing in re¬ 
lation to the commercial interests in St. Joseph, so that the board may under¬ 
stand. 

Mr. Brockett. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the hoard, I have had a some¬ 
what extended connection with the city of St. Joseph. I am a civil engineer 
and have had considerable experience upon the Missouri River; perhaps a great 
deal, perhaps a more definite history of the river from Sioux City, at least, 
from Kansas City, to St. Louis than almost any engineer now alive. 



206 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 


I want to state, although I hate to confess it, that I am nearly 70 years old. 
1 have in my lifetime been acquainted or connected with an enterprise that took 
me, as an engineer, into a law office, and for four years in that law office I con¬ 
ducted the business of that law office, with other employees, and in connection 
with a certain case I compiled a book of the land-grant records of the United 
States, of all canal records, turnpike records, and every public franchise I could 
find in any State or Territory related to transportation or related to highways. 
That case finally became known as the 400,000-acre case of Kansas. I came our 
of that office a fairly well-read lawyer. 

I have combined those two professions in more recent years—in fact, ever 
since—in railroad construction. And, in order to ease myself from the stress of 
those labors, I have been farming, and this year I have raised almost as fine 
a crop of corn as can be found in the Missouri Valley, so that I have some 
acquaintance with the State of Missouri and with the river. 

I have lived at St. Joseph for 30 years. One of the most considerable tasks 
1 undertook was the building of the Union Terminal Railroad at St. Joseph. 
I had to do a great deal of river work in the building of that road, and I became 
thoroughly acquainted with those conditions. Twenty years before that time, 
at Sioux City, I had made some changes in the river bank there for Massa¬ 
chusetts people, so that I may say to you that I speak with some knowledge as 
to what can be done on the Missouri River channel. 

So far as the commercial interests of St. Joseph are concerned, I have been 
helping to build a railroad in different parts of the city, and I have, in a way, 
added to the industries of the community. That is about the extent of it, 
except the good will I feel toward my city. 

Preliminary to reading a very short brief, I wish to make a few remarks in 
relation to the State of Missouri, as one of the States of the Union. As a 
board of engineers, you are well aware that it occupies a most unique situation 
among the States of the Union. It has more river frontage, taking the great flow¬ 
ing Missouri River through the State, from its eastern boundary to Kansas City 
on its western boundary, and from Kansas City up to the Iowa line, more river 
frontage on a great navigable stream than any other State in the Union, and 
I want to stop at this point just a moment and explain that while I say “ great 
navigable stream,” it is not navigable under all conditions. 

I heard a gentleman talking about 100 or more wrecks in the river. I have 
seen box cars run down off of the track and into the solid ground; I have seen 
many railroad accidents, and have observed the hazards of every kind and 
character of transportation, and I want to say that from my observation of the 
traffic up and down the river that there is but one class of transportation by 
the river, and that is such as existed when we first discovered it. And while I 
admire the effort of our Kansas City friends to navigate the Missouri River, I 
think they have undertaken to ask too much depth in the Missouri River. I 
think the old-fashioned boat, if it had a steel bottom and could be put into 
service profitably, would be the only way to bring about successful traffic on 
the river. 

And I believe, gentlemen, to go to another branch, that there has been a mis¬ 
taken policy on the part of the Government and upon the part of the War De¬ 
partment in treating the Missouri River. The Missouri River belongs to the 
United States Government, because it is a navigable stream, and it is in charge 
of the War Department, but we hear to-day so much said about what is just 
outside the banks of the river—the alluvial soil has been brought down, and 
then we have heard of its being washed from this side and that side—and I 
want to say that it will require a different policy from the State of Missouri 
and its citizens, and a different policy from the United States Government, 
and then we can go forward toward the successful navigation of the river. 

The policy that should be proceeded with is a united policy on the part of 
this State with the United States Government, with a policy that the people of 
this State can adopt with the United States. I will not go into the detail of bank 
revetments and work which can be done, but all of the engineers who ever 
have been on the Missouri River, all I have ever heard, who have been up and 
down the river, know that only one side of the river needs protection at a time, 
consequently only half of the whole river, or comparatively, so to speak, about 
one-half of it, as far as the State of Missouri is concerned, will need any care 
taken of it in the preservation of its banks. Consequently the project should 
be joined in by the State and by the Government, and I may undertake to out¬ 
line a little plan with reference to the portions in and about the centers of 
population; that the policy should be so changed that there will be no idea of 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 207 


navigation connected with the aid of the Government around those centers, 
but simply an idea to take care of the commerce that has been centered around 
and about those centers of population and everything that has grown up there. 

I possibly could take some time longer and possibly interest you, and perhaps 
not. I am going to say this, however, before I take up my paper, that I have 
studied this question of transportation some in the last six or eight weeks, and 
very considerable in my lifetime, but, as I say, lately I have given it consid¬ 
erable attention, and I think that if the ideas which I have here expressed 
are followed up they will perhaps be of some assistance to our Congressmen in 
Congress. 

In 1910 there was an appropriation of $75,000 for protection work at St. 
Joseph, in which the citizens of St. Joseph were asked to contribute a like 
amount of $75,000. But that like amount was never contributed, gentlemen, 
although there was the absolute need then and there is to-day that the 
work should be done, but our citizens sat there idle and supine and did not 
undertake to make the effort, and their Congressmen quit that work. Conse¬ 
quently, the effort will have to be made again, and if it is not done at all a 
great deal of havoc will be done in that neighborhood. 

This brief may perhaps, in the first instance, have some ideas that are not 
exactly in line, not hardly atune to it, not close enough to the subject, but I 
believe, when considered as a whole, it will give you some light upon this 
subject. 

Referring to this bill under which this hearing is called, under the fourteenth 
section, I have no doubt but that every member of the Missouri delegation voted 
for it, because they were so massed together that every Congressman was 
forced into taking care of himself; hence the engineer in charge of the river 
at this point was called on, under the fourteenth section, to make his report. 
Now, whenever I have taken up the report of the officer in charge I have de¬ 
ferred a great deal to his judgment and opinion, for the reason that he is a 
sworn officer of the Government undertaking to do his duty as such sworn 
officer, and believing that he undertakes to make a complete investigation, and 
as he goes on investigating and gets to fully understand the situation his report 
ought to be looked upon somewhat as an authority as to conditions as he finds 
them and understands them. 

I refer in this brief to Capt. Hiram Chittenden, one of the Army engineers 
in charge of the river- 

Congressman Borland. Do you purpose to file that brief with the commis¬ 
sion? 

Mr. Brockett. Yes; but I would like to read it, i' yen please; it has only 
five pages. 

Congressman Borland. I think it would be delightful to have you read it, 
but I must consider the interests of some other men here who have to take 
trains, and I do not want to shut them out. 

Mr. Brockett. I will, of course, be short; it will take hut 7 or 10 minutes. 

Congressman Borland. I have no objection to your reading the paper, but I 
want to preserve the rights of other men that have come here, and if you will 
limit yourself to 10 minutes you may proceed. 

Mr. Brockett. I can do that nicely; much obliged. 

(At this point witness reads paper, which is filed with the secretary of the 
board.) 

(Witness excused.) 

M. M. Stephens, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. State your name for the record please. 

Mr. Stephens. M. M. Stephens. 

Congressman Borland. What is your official position with the State of 
Illinois? 

Mr. Stephens. Chairman of the Illinois Waterways Commission. 

Congressman Borland. Are you here by authority of the governor of Illinois? 

Mr. Stephens. Y r es, sir. 

Congressman Borland. For what purpose? 

Mr. Stephens. Simply to represent him and state that he is in favor of the 
improvement of the inland waterways, and is about to expend $5,000,000 in that 
direction, with the approval of the last Legislature of the State of Illinois. 

Congressman Borland. What do you say, Mr. Stephens, as to the practical 
necessity of having a connected system of waterways in the Mississippi Valley? 

Mr. Stephens. I think it is very essential. 



208 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 


Congressman Borland. Including the Missouri River and the Ohio and also 
the Mississippi? 

Mr. Stephens. And the Illinois and the Drainage Canal from the Lakes? 

Congressman Borland. Yes. 

Mr. Stephens. I think it is very essential indeed. 

Congressman Borland. Are there any other facts you wish to present along 
that line, Mr. Stephens? 

Mr. Stephens. Nothing that would enlighten the gentlemen that I know of at 
present. I have just started in; I have only been in office a week so that I am 
not very thoroughly posted on the building of waterways, while I have been an 
advocate of it for many years. 

Col. Newcomer. Let me ask you if that expenditure of which you speak, by 
the Stare of Illinois, is contingent at all on further work to be done by the 
United States? 

Mr. Stephens. No ; the people have voted $20,000,000. 

Col. Newcomer. And it was not expected that the United States would coop¬ 
erate in that certain work? 

Mr. Stephens. We will have to submit it to the United States in order to get 
into the Illinois River, and we have to work hand in hand, but we do not expect 
them to expend any money. 

Col. Newcomer. And the appropriation by the State is not made contingent 
on that? 

Mr. Stephens. No. 

Congressman Borland. The State of Illinois expects to get back this $20,- 
000,000, or a return upon it, by the sale of water power, does it not? 

Mr. Stephens. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. So that it is a development of the resources of the 
State of Illinois? 

Mr. Stephens. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And they are making this enormous investment and 
expect to get it back and retire those bonds from the earnings of the water 
project ? 

Mr. Stephens. Yes. 

Mr. Bland. So far as the State of Illinois is concerned, it has or its donation 
will be $100,000,000 when the $20,000,000 will have been expended for navigation 
purposes? 

Mr. Stephens. Yes, sir; which will give it a water route through the canal 
from the Lakes to the Gulf. 

(Witness excused.) 

C. F. Schafer, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. State your name, please. 

Mr. Schafer. C. F. Schafer. 

Congressman Borland. What have you to state, Mr. Schafer? 

Mr. Schafer. Gentlemen of this board, I represent the landowners of Saline 
County and the Missouri River bottoms in Saline County, Mo. 

Saline County, Mo., has more Missouri River frontage than any other county 
in the State. I believe one gentleman this morning said his county had more 
river frontage, but it has not more frontage on the Missouri River. Our county 
is bounded on three sides by the Missouri River. 

In the western end of the county we lay just below the work done by the 
Government at Waverly, and after the Government made the appropriation to 
do this work at Waverly we people got busy. We figured there was a chance 
that the Government would come on down this river from there and make it 
navigable so that we could ship our products by water and also protect our 
land from the overflow of the river. And we went into the county court and 
formed a levee district, and we have spent $30,000 in that one levee district 
immediately north of Malta Bend, and our levee has been saved from the ravages 
of the river up until the present time. I expect, when you made your trip down 
the river, just below the bend and levee you saw some sacks. There was a place 
we found was a little low and we put those sacks there. The river had made 
a change there, and it looked like a part of our land was going into the river, 
and we had no permanent place to ship our grain on the river. 

The river at that point is, to look at it, about a mile and one-half wide, and 
sometimes the boats come down on our side of the river, sometimes on the 
Carroll County side, and sometimes in the middle of the river. There is plenty 
of water if it was confined to one channel. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 209 


I have a man here, a Mr. Wilson, who I do not believe is just now in the room, 
that says when the bank is protected he will construct warehouses on that 
bank for shipping facilities on the river. It is a very fine place. We have roads 
leading from there out to all the land in all directions, and that noint would 
make a fine shipping point. As it is, we have got to go to the railroad, and 
while it is not far from that place to the Missouri Pacific Railway, yet we could 
get a little better rates on the river, and we were very sorry to see this report 
of Col. Deakyne’s, because we felt that we were very much at the mercy of the 
Missouri Itiver, especially as all our property is in the Misssouri River bottom, 
and all we have got is there. We realize the fact that when you make the 
Missouri River navigable you make the banks of the river permanent, and then 
we can protect our land by levees, and I will venture to make the assertion 
that there will only be a small portion of the land on the Missouri River bottoms 
from Kansas City to St. Louis that will not be protected by levees from the 
overflow of the river as soon as the people see that their money is not going 
to be washed into the river. And we figured that by the time the river would 
threaten a change the Government would not be far away with their work, and 
that its work would continue; but if the Government now stops its work our 
money will be gone. 

Congressman Borland. How much money did you say was invested in your 
district ? 

Mr. Schafer. We have invested $30,000 in our district, the Grand Pass 
drainage district I think $20,000, and the Gillham Lake district $20,000, making 
a total of $70,000 invested altogether. 

Congressman Borland. And that has all been raised by the landowners 
themselves? 

Mr. Schafer. Yes; that has all been raised by the landowners themselves; 
we paid that all ourselves. The Government and the State did not pay a cent. 

Col. Biddle. How much land is there in that district? 

Mr. Schafer. There is. roughly, about 9,000 acres in the three combined dis¬ 
tricts. I will say that in those three districts there is approximately 4,000 
acres of reclaimed swamp land, and while we did not get much off of the swamp 
land this year, last year off of the swamp land we raised enough crops to pay 
for all the expense of draining and reclaiming the land. You realize that this 
year there was so much rain we could not raise the crops, and while our land 
was not overflowed and we raised on the highland a good crop, yet just above 
Miami the bottoms were overflowed and the bottom land on the Carroll County 
side was overflowed; and that just simply shows what the work on the Missouri 
River will not only do for navigation, but what it will do for the people that 
own the lands along the river bottom. I think that is about all I have to say. 

Congressman Borland. I understand you to say that your work down there 
is wholly dependent on a continuation of this channel work? 

Mr. Schafer. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. You are doing that at your own cost and expense, 
but your work is practically so connected with the channel improvement that 
it would have to be abandoned if the channel improvement was abandoned? 

Mr. Schafer. Yes; that is true. We have at the lower end of our ditch just 
one place there where we have a pumping station that the river went to, but 
if this work is abandoned we have $3,000 that will go in there in one lump. 

Congressman Borland. You do not know the condition on the lower Missis¬ 
sippi River? 

Mr. Schafer. No ; I do not know the conditions down there. 

Congressman Borland. Down there they have enormous levees that protect 
a very large area of land. My understanding is that in the Missouri River 
bottom different conditions prevail, and that on account of the frequent small 
streams that come down from the hills they must have small levee districts to 
protect relatively small amounts of land? 

Mr. Schafer. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And we have adjusted our State laws to that condi¬ 
tion, to provide for small levee districts? 

Mr. Schafer. Y r es; we have levee laws that permit the formation of levee 
districts in the county or circuit court. Our district is incorporated under the 
circuit-court plan. The two districts just above ours are in the county-court 
plan. 

Congressman Borland. And that accounts for the fact that your districts are 
relatively small in the area they take care of? 

H. Doc. 4G3, 64-1-14 



210 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Mr. Schafer. Yes. Of course, we have small territory on our side of the 
river right there, hut it is very fine land, as good land, as one of our commis¬ 
sioners told the court, as can be found in the Valley of the Nile. 

Congressman Borland. You are indulging in a relatively high expense for 
protection for a relatively small amount of land? 

Mr. Schafer. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. But you regard that land as justifying the protection 
you give it? 

Air. Schafer. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And the contributions you are making as local land- 
owners for the building of levees is practically almost the full value of the land, 
is it not? 

Mr. Schafer. Well, yes. 

Congressman Borland. That is, except for future development? 

Mr. Schafer. The work we have done on that land will cost us as much as 
the land was worth in the first place, while we figured that when the work was 
done the land would be worth double what it is at the present time. And our 
commissioners—I will say to you what they estimated the value of the land to 
be, and they were three as good men, I think, on land values as there are to 
be found in our county, and they said that swamp .land that was covered with 
water from 1 to 4 feet deep in the spring of the year when you wanted to 
farm it, and that in the fall of the year, when you could not farm it, because 
it was too late, it was dry, and did not even make good fishing or hunting land, 
and that it was not worth anything; it was not worth $5 an acre; but that if 
drained it was worth $60 an acre. There was lots of that land last year 
that produced 40 bushels of wheat to the acre and some of it sold for $1.50 
a bushel. Of course, this year they did not get to cut the wheat, but there was 
wheat on the ground this year at harvest time that would have made 40 
bushels to the acre again. 

Congressman Borland. When was your levee or drainage board organized? 

Air. Schafer. I think we were organized in 1910. We were a long time 
getting through court. 

Congressman Borland. It 'was organized in 1910? 

Air. Schafer. Yes; I think we were organized in 1910. 

Congressman Borland. And your work has all been done since that time? 

Air. Schafer. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And are you near the completion of your work? 

Air. Schafer. Yes; our work is completed; it has been completed now for a 
year. 

Congressman Borland. I just want to call the attention of the board in that 
connection to the statement appearing at page 44 of the brief, House Document 
No. 12S7, a statement which was made by the special board of Army engineers, 
including Col. Abbot and some of these other gentlemen, who came here in 
November of 1910 to consider the question of local cooperation of this State. 
It is as follows: 

“ It is also considered proper to draw attention to the fact that the public 
hearing of November 14, 1910, disclosed that the owners of bottom lands along 
the river were merely awaiting the protection of the banks before beginning 
the construction of levees on an extensive scale. As soon as the United States 
has rendered the banks secure, local interests will find it possible and profit¬ 
able to build levees, and the river improvement should be so conducted as to 
insure that the distance between the levees on opposite banks shall be sufficient 
to prevent damage to the low-water channel by floods which may have dis¬ 
charges from 750,000 to 900,000 second-feet.” 

That was just about the time you were beginning your work? 

Air. Schafer. Yes; just about the time we were beginning our work. 

Congressman Borland. Gen. Bixby said, in commenting on that report: 

“ I concur with the board that the levee construction should be left to the 
riparian owners and that as a general rule other cooperation will be imprac¬ 
ticable, but I consider that among city points or at other special localities, 
where large interests are involved, cooperation in the way of bank protection 
may properly be required.” 

Now, you were speaking of the condition around Alalta Bend, where the three 
levee districts are. 

Air. Schafer. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. You are not aware of the number existing up and 
down stream between here and St. Louis? 


MISSOUEI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 211 


Mr. Schafer. No; there is a district just across from us in Carroll Countv 
n ^ r y , a t lat part of the county is in a drainage or levee district and 
theie is a levee district down below Glasgow 

itSliT, 1 ” 11 ' 1 ,? 01 ?™' The ® ffect of H'e reclaiming of this land and making 
"* 3 ct to cultivation year after year would be to increase tlie surplus agri- 
cultural products that will go up and down the river’ 

Mr. Schafer. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. There is no doubt about that in your mind at all? 

Mr. Schafer. No; there is no doubt about it in my mind whatever. .Just 
below us, in what is called the Miami bottom, here a few years ago those farmers 
down there lined their wheat up along the river bank for the ferrvboat to come 
up and get it—before navigation started—and the ferryboats came up and git 
it, and it is cheaper than to haul it to Malta Bend. And those farmers had 
to work day and night to move that wheat back to keep the river away from it 
and that took all of the money they got out of the wheat. And that is true not 
only at one point but all up and down the river. 

Col. Winslow. Has the levee work you have been doing upon the lowland 
had any effect upon the value of land in the uplands? 

Mr. Schafer. There is no upland in our county. 

Col. Winslow. But there are uplands along the river? 

Mr. Schafer. Our work has only been completed a year and we got one 
crop off of it, and this year we have had excessive rain and have not received 
much benefit from it this year. Had it been a normal year our land would 
pretty near have doubled in price this year. After the work was done some of 
that land sold for about one-third more money than they had ever sold any 
land in that bottom for before, figuring that this work would be a benefit to it. 
Some of that lake land, owned by the Kansas City Co. here, Stewart & 
Peck, and those fellows, they paid $10 an acre for that lan fcr hunting 
purposes. Mr. Wilson bought that land last spring and paid those fellows 
$40 an acre for it. They did not want it for hunting purposes any more after 
it was dry. Mr. Wilson wanted it for farm land. That shows what that 
work has done to increase the value of that land. That is the Lest I can 
answer that question. 

(Witness excused.) 


August Wohlt, called as a witness, tesified as follows; 

Congressman Borland. State your name, please. 

Mr. Wohlt. August Wohlt. 

Congressman Borland. You are from Hermann, Mo.? 

Mr. Wohlt. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. What business are you engaged it, Mr. Wohlt? 

Mr. Wohlt. I used to be in the steamboat business. I am representing the 
Commercial Club of Hermann just now and a citizen in general of the city 
of Hermann. I want to state to the board that we are in a bad fix down there. 
We do not ask for any land protection now on our side—the Gasconade side— 
but we ask for some help to get the river back to our side again, because 
Hermann is the shipping point, or shipping port, for the Gasconade River, the 
same as St. Louis would be for the Mississippi River, and if the Gasconade 
River traffic can not get to Hermann it is practically at an end, because there 
is no way to dispose of their goods at Gasconade, except to load them into the 
cars and ship them that way. Down at Hermann, if they can ship to Hermann, 
the wheat is consumed into flour and shipped on from there, and live stock and 
all such stuff is also shipped on cars there. 

But our county has not got more than about 8 or 10 miles of land that has 

caved in. But that has been riprapped in such good shape some years ago 

that it ha; held ever since and we do not ask for land protection, but we do 
ask to have the river brought back again—for river protection—to get the 
channel back there again. And I wish to affirm the statement Mr. Spear made 
this morning as to work done on the Gasconade River and on the Osage River. 
The Osage River we do not get so much benefit from, but we do from the 

Gasconade River work. And at the present time the river is 9 feet on the 

gauge, but if it falls to as low a stage as it did two or three years ago, or last 
year, we will have dry bars and no water at all. 

The Government has put in a few dikes on the other side about a mile and 
a half above, but it looks like they could not get that side to hold. If they put 
in a few more I think they would be more successful in turning the water over 
to us. But now, if the Government quit doing any work whatever, there is no 


212 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

telling how far out we would lose the river; it would he dry there for some 
time. Therefore, I would like to ask, if possible, that if any appropriation is 
made, that that work should be looked after as soon as possible, as there is 
urgent need for it. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Wohlt, you realize, of course, that they are fol¬ 
lowing a general engineering plnn of improvement of the entire reaches of the 
river, and the question now under discussion is whether that engineering plan 
should be abandoned. What would be the effect on your locality down there if 
than was abandoned? 

Mr. Wohlt. If that was abandoned, it would be hard to tell what it might 
result in. We might have hundreds of acres of land in front of town there in 
a short time. Of course, it might come back later, we don’t know, but the way 
it is cutting in there now it is going in by acres at a time. 

Congressman Borland. Hermann is an important shipping point, is it not? 

Mr. Wohlt. Yes, sir; for the Gasconade River. We have all the way from 
two to five boats running up and down there. 

Congressman Borland. You have your own local industr 5 s there, too? 

Mr. Wohlt. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. Have you anything more you want to present? 

Mr. Wohlt. No : that is all I wish to state. 

I wish to state that Mr. Mackie has got a statement of the Gasconade River 
traffic, and he can tell you what the traffic is on that river. 

Congressman Borland. Very well, we will have that put in the record. 

(Witness excused.) 

Curtis Hill, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. State your name for the record. 

Mr. Hill. Curtis Hill. 

Congressman Borland. You are city engineer of Kansas City, Mo.? 

Mr. Hill. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Hill, the mayor of Kansas City was here this 
morning and left word that you would be able to explain to the board the con¬ 
dition of the municipal terminal of Kansas City, its present condition, and when 
it was created, and what it consists of, and what extension is proposed of it. 

Mr. Hill. Gentlemen of the board, I can only give that in a general way. 
I have nothing much to add to the information you have already received, but 
I want to state as a representative of Kansas City that the municipal wharves 
which most directly concern your subject were constructed before I entered 
the service of the city. We are now making arrangements to add to them 
whatever may be necessary in order to aid in handling the freight, and we are 
working with the Missouri Pacific Railway for a spur track into the ware¬ 
house, and we expect to soon erect further crane facilities on the unloading 
docks. That is the extent to which we are planning the extension of the 
wharf facilities at the present time. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Hill, my attention was distracted for a moment. 
What improvements are contemplated? 

Mr. Hill. Only to the extent of another unloading crane and a spur track, 
<one additional track. 

Congressman Borland. There is only one unloading crane there now? 

Mr. Hill. Yes; one 2-ton crane. 

Congressman Borland. What will be the capacity of the new crane? 

Mr. Hill. Possibly 4 tons. 

Congressman Borland. That will triple the capacity, will it? 

Mr. Hill. Yes; it will triple the present capacity. 

Congressman Borland. This picture here in the brief represents the traveling 
crane, does it? 

Mr. Hill. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. So your improvement contemplated will triple the 
capacity of that municipal wharf? 

Mr. Hill. Yes. 

* Congressman Borland. Is there anything further you wish to state, Mr. Hill? 

Mr. Hill. Nothing further, Mr. Borland. I am not an expert of high ex¬ 
perience in these matters. 

Col. Winslow. Does the city get any revenue from this terminal at Kansas 
City ? 

Mr. Hill. Only from storage charges. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 213 


Col. Winslow. And the city does not get that if the freight is unloaded and 
taken right away? 

Mr. Hill. No, sir. 

Col. Abbot. Who pays the expenses of operating the crane? 

Mr. Hill. The company. 

Col. Winslow. Does the money received from storage pay the running 
expenses? 

Mr. Hill. Yes, sir; about; that is, the running expenses of the city men who 
are in charge. 

Col. Winslow. It pays no interest on the investment? 

Mr. Hill. No ; it does not. 

Col. Flagler. Do you look in the future to get any return on the investment? 

Mr. Hill. We have never considered that, that I know of. I have been in 
the engineering department. 

Senator Reed. They get a pretty big return in the way of better freight rates, 
don’t they? 

Mr. Hill. Yes; but not in the way in which the question was asked. 

Congressman Borland. That municipal wharf is constructed on public ground 
owned by Kansas City, is it not? 

Mr. Hill. Yes; Kansas City owns the river front for some distance both 
ways from the present wharf. 

Col. Newcomer. Some one told me to-day that there was a charge of 2£ cents 
a ton for material that simply went over the wharf and 5 cents a ton for ma¬ 
terial that went into the warehouse. 

Mr. Hill. It may be true that the 21 cents is charged, as you say, but the 
5 cents for storage is the only charge that I have knowledge of. 

Col. Newcomer. And the transportation company furnishes the labor for the 
operation of the crane? 

Mr. Hill. Yes. 

(Witness excused.) 

A. A. Poland, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. State your name, please. 

Mr. Poland. A. A. Poland. 

Congressman Borland. What is your connection with the Kansas City Mis¬ 
souri River Navigation Co.? 

Mr. Poland. General freight agent. 

Congressman Borland. How long have you been such general freight agent 
of the transportation company? 

Mr. Poland. Since the 15th of April, 1912. 

Congressman Borland. What are your duties in that connection? 

Mr. Poland. Having charge of the traffic, the rates, and the handling of the 
business of the company so far as rating and solicitation, etc., is concerned. 

Congressman Borland. Had you previously been in the railroad business? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir; for 20 years with the railroads before I came here. 

Congressman Borland. What was your connection with the railroads? 

Mr. Poland. The last position I had was with the New York Central. Pre¬ 
vious to that I was with the Ontario & Western 15 years, and with the 
Wabash previous to that at St. Louis. 

Congressman Borland. So that you have had some experience with freight 
traffic and freight rates? 

Mr. Poland. Yes; for a number of years. 

Congressman Borland. I wish you would tell the board briefly in your own 
way of the growth of the traffic of the boat line for the period you have been 
with it. 

Mr. Poland. Briefly speaking, the statement is in the brief. The statement 
of tonnage handled each year speaks for itself, and it shows a very heavy 
increase; it indicates the condition of the river traffic more than anything 
else. This brief contains a statement showing that in 1911, 1,084 tons of 
freight were handled; in 1912, 5,215 tons; in 1913, 9,784 tons; in 1914, 13,677 
tons; and in 1915, up to the 1st of October, 27,306 tons. 

Congressman Borland. That is, up to October 1 of this year? 

Mr. Poland. Yes; up to October 1 of this year. 

Congressman Borland. When does your navigation season close? 

Mr. Poland. The 15th of November of this year. We are closing a little 
earlier than in recent years. 


214 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Congressman Borland. When does your navigation season begin? 

Mr. Poland. The 1st of March. 

That tonnage statement, while it shows the number of tons moved, does not 
give the character of the tonnage or give any idea of the business of the navi¬ 
gation company. Up to the 23d of March, 1913, we might say that w& confined 
our business to westbound tonnage and to the small boats. The Chester was 
then working, and the Advance was a 150-horsepower boat with a little barge; 
and it does not reflect really what the navigation company could do. We did 
not attempt, up to that time, to handle grain products eastbound. We were 
not interstate-commerce carriers. The interstate-commerce law exempts boat 
lines from the operation of the law, except when they voluntarily enter its 
jurisdiction by filing a tariff with the commission. And we felt that our 
capacity was so limited that we could not throw our line open to the general 
public throughout the West to use for handling grain products, for that reason. 
If we had a tariff filed with the commission we would be compelled to carry 
the tonnage offered under that, and on any diverted tonnage we would have 
to pay the difference. 

Congressman Borland. What season are you speaking of, Mr. Poland? 

Mr. Poland. In 1913 we filed our first tariff with the Interstate Commerce 
Commission. 

Congressman Borland. What time in 1913? 

Mr. Poland. March 23—I think that was the date. That was on flour and 
feed, eastbound, and carried a rate of 80 per cent of the rail rate from Kansas 
City to East St. Louis. Previous to that time we had handled some few 
shipments of grain products eastbound, but it handicapped the shippers for the 
reason that they could not get negotiable bills of lading on those goods until 
they arrived at East St. Louis and had been delivered to the railroad. But 
after that tariff was filed it enabled us to issue through bills of lading, and 
our 1913 tonnage reflects the effect of that to some extent—the 1914 tonnage, 
I should say—and the 1915 tonnage consisted of 11,200 tons of grain products 
eastbound. That was the only tariff filed by the company with the Interstate 
Commerce Commission until the 13th day of September of this year, at which 
time we put in a through rate on grain products from Kansas City to Newport 
News and Norfolk, Va. That is covered in the brief also. 

There is one thing I want to say, and that is that in 1912 the boat-line 
tonnage was 76 per cent third class and higher. In 1913 it was slightly lower, 
a little less than 65 per cent third class and higher; that is, at that time we 
were getting high-class tonnage for westbound shipments only. That has 
been reduced since we have gotten it to the carriage of heavy tonnage, which 
will increase year after year and greatly reduce the rate per ton. This year 
I can not give you the exact figures, but from my knowledge of it I would 
say that our tonnage of high-class freight, such as merchandise, will not run 
over 15 or 20 per cent of the total tonnage. That is for the the reason that 
we have been handling a heavier tonnage of downstream freight and a much 
heavier tonnage of steel and low-class tonnage westbound. 

Congressman Borland. The high-grade stuff does not run into much tonnage 
but runs more into freight revenue. Is that true? 

Mr. Poland. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. In that connection, Mr. Poland, can you make any 
fair comparison of the business transacted on the river by a simple statement 
of the gross tonnage, without regard to the ton-mile or" classification of the 
freight? Does the mere statement of the gross tonnage disclose very much 
about the business? 

Mr. Poland. No; the mere statement of the gross tonnage does not show 
the business, for the reason, I can safely say, that there is not a boat line in 
the country that is handling the class of tonnage this line has to handle. We 
have not had a single barge come into Kansas City in the last two years that 
did not have a carload or more of pianos on it. We have handled plate glass; 
we have shipments right along of cut glass and fragile goods of that character. 

Another statement I want to make right there as a railroad man of 30 
years’ experience. Our freight claims are less than those of any railroad in 
the United States. We have less damage and less breakage; our freight 
claims for 1915 will not be near 1 per cent of the freight earnings. A man 
who was with the Wabash Railroad for a number of years stated that from a 
statement of the loss on tonnage—I am giving you this data on his say—that 
the ordinary railroad freight claims on that class of tonnage would run nearly 
3 per cent; ours will run less than 1 per cent. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 215 

We prorate all claims through to destination. If a shipment originates in 
Boston or any place in the East, and comes into Kansas City with what we 
call a “ concealed loss ” discovered after delivery, that is prorated clear 
through to the original point of shipment. 

Congressman Borland. You are relieved, of course, being water carriers, 
from the damage caused by derailment, collision, and rough handling of cars, 
and all that? 

Mr. Poland. Yes; at East St. Louis we load—practically all our merchandise 
freight is upstream—we load by means of a conveyor. It is just simply a 
moving sidewalk, and there is very little jar or liability to damage. We 
handle heavy stuff on the same conveyor that we do fragile goods. At Kansas 
City we take the freight out with a crane, and naturally there is no jarring 
or jolting or damage from rough handling. 

Then, another feature is that all of our freight is loaded in cargo-house 
barges with steel cargo houses, and the steel doors are closed and padlocked 
when leaving St. Louis; and we do not have any trouble with tramps or thieves 
en route; and that eliminates a great deal of the ordinary claims made on 
railroads of a mere pilfering nature. 

Congressman Borland. One shipper said there was less pilfering on your 
line than on a railroad; and that is due to the conditions you have stated, is it? 

Mr. Poland. Yes ; it is due to that; and a shipper told me to-day, who has shipped 
a good deal of freight, that during this season’s business (and this is his first 
season shipping by our boat line) that they never had their goods come in such 
good condition, and that is largely due to the mechanical handling of the freight 
and the lack of the ordinary dangers of railroad traffic. 

Congressman Borland. I wanted to call your attention to the case of the 
Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. v. The Chesapeake & Ohio Railroad, 
I. C. C. docket 7002, decided May 11, 1915. What was the scope of that case? 

Mr. Poland. The complaint in that case was drawn by Mr. H. G. Wilson, of 
the Commercial Club, and myself. There is in existence, and has been for sev¬ 
eral years, a through rate on flour and feed for export from Kansas City to 
Newport News. All other rates break at the Mississippi River—that is, the 
local rate to the Mississippi plus the local rate beyond the Mississippi makes 
the through rate. But in 1907 the western lines were authorized by their 
eastern connections to put in a through rate which was 2 cents per hundred less 
than the combination on East St. Louis. We found that there was a great deal 
of desirable tonnage (export flour leaving by way of Newport News), and we 
wanted to participate in that tonnage, and applied to the eastern lines to join 
us in a through rate and accept from East St. Louis the same proportion they 
were getting on rail business; and they informed us that they did not propose 
to put on any rate with a steamboat line. The commission had previously 
ruled on various occasions on railroad rates in combination with steamboat 
lines, and we appealed to the commission and won the case. 

Congressman Borland. That is, the railroads declined to put in a joint tariff? 

Mr. Poland. Yes; and refused even after the commission had ordered them 
to do so. We got our decision in May, 1915. 

Congressman Borland. You got your decision in May, 1915? 

Mr. Poland. Y r es; but the decision in May of 1915 was not complied with until 
about the 10th day of August. Our tariff was filed on 30 days’ notice, and I 
think we got the tariff out about the 10th of August and sent it to Washington 
so that it would be there August 13, effective in 30 days, which would he Sep¬ 
tember 13. After that the railroad tried several schemes to keep from putting 
in those through rates, but now they are in. 

Congressman Borland. So that you have won that particular victory? 

Mr. Poland. Yes; that is settled; and I believe we will not have to go to the 
commission again with a similar case, as the railroads understand that they 
must participate with steamboat lines in through rates, and probably will not 
in the future.try to charge more than the proportion they are getting on ex-rail 
business. 

Congressman Borland. That decision went only to flour and feed moving for 
export via Newport News? 

Mr. Poland. Y r es; that was the extent of that particular decision; but it laid 
down' the broad principle of participation of steamboat lines in those rates. 

Congressman Borland. Are the railroads resisting now the making of joint 
rates on other commodities than flour and feed to Newport News? 

Mr. Poland. There has no question come up as to other commodities, for the 
reason this steamboat line—this territory—is favored by having a break of 


216 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


rates at East St. Louis, so that the question would probably not come up except 
when we grew large enough to extend our facilities on out to other Kansas, 
Colorado, and Nebraska points. 

Congressman Borland. What do you say about the rates on alfalfa and alfalfa 
meals that are based on the Cairo rate and do not break at East St. Louis? 

Mr. Poland. We have never gone into that. 

Congressman Borland. Is it possible that you are going to have another case 
before the Interstate Commerce Commission on that? 

Mr. Poland. It is possible, but we have never so far taken that up. The 
matter is now up with the lines to .loin us in through rates to Cairo, and I 
believe that will be settled without recourse to suit. 

Col. Abbot. Is that a water line or rail line? 

Mr. Poland. Rail lines. There is no water line operating with which we 
could connect between St. Louis and Cairo. 

Col. Taylor. Are you familiar with the Interstate Commerce Commission de¬ 
cision in the Chattanooga Packet case? 

Mr. Poland. I have read the case, but I have forgotten the exact decision. 
You mean where the Chattanooga line applied for a proportionate rate from 
the Ohio River crossings? 

Col. Abbot. Yes; Paducah and St. Louis. 

Mr. Poland. Yes; I am familiar with the decision in that case; the court 
decided in favor of the packet company. 

Col. Taylor. Was not that similar to your case? 

Mr. Poland. Yes; that was a decision to that end. There is a previous case 
on the same ground, where the Savannah line operated from Augusta to Savan¬ 
nah on the river in connection with ocean lines to New England points and in 
connection with the New York, New Haven & Hartford, and the New York 
Central to interior points, but it covered the same ground as the Chattanooga 
case. 

Col. Newcomer. Do you have railroad connection at East St. Louis? 

Mr. Poland. We connect with the Wiggins Ferry Co., which gives us track 
connections with every railroad in St. Louis, and they are affiliated with the 
Terminal Railroad of St. Louis. 

Col. Newcomer. What is that terminal arrangement? 

Mr. Poland. That was not explained exactly by Mr. Coyle. He left the im¬ 
pression that the navigation company landed at East St. Louis, but he did -not 
go into it as explicitly as he should. We land at East St. Louis, but we make 
rates to St. Louis which are exactly 80 per cent of the railroad rates from Kan¬ 
sas City to St. Louis. And we have an arrangement at St. Louis with the St. 
Louis and the Columbia Transfer Companies for handling less-than-carload lots 
of freight between dock and industries in St. Louis through their five stations 
in St. Louis. We also make deliveries in carload lots in St. Louis on the Termi¬ 
nal Railroad tracks and absorb the transfer charges. 

Col. Taylor. If you did have a wharf or dock at St. Louis, is it not probable 
that you would dock both at St. Louis and East St. Louis? 

Mr. Poland. We would not be compelled to dock at St. Louis. In making 
rates to the East, I make this statement, that 90 per cent of the business west¬ 
bound comes to us in carloads. Practically all of that originates east of the 
150-mile district Mr. Coyle spoke about; that is a little district around St. 
Louis where the bridge arbitrary applies. The rates without that district 
apply to St. Louis or East St. Louis at the same rate; it applies to each point, 
and if we had a dock at St. Louis the railroads could deliver at East St. Louis 
or at St. Louis, as they do now. 

Senator Reed. Let me interject a question to see if I can clear that matter up. 
Is not that arrangement abolishing the bridge arbitrary one that has only been 
effective the last 10 or 12 months? 

Mr. Poland. No ; the bridge arbitrary primarily was absorbed in 1907, but it 
was not worked out to its final condition until the last 10 or 12 months. 

Senator Reed. Well, it was wiped out then, and they quit chaYging it as a 
bridge arbitrary, and they absorbed it into the rate and made the rate to St. 
Louis substantially as much higher than the rate to East St. Louis as it had 
formerly been when they charged the rate as a bridge arbitrary? 

Mr. Poland. Not exactly. Previous to 1907 the first-class rate from New 
York, all rail, to East St. Louis was 87 cents a hundred. The rate to St. Louis 
was 87 cents a hundred to East St. Louis, plus the bridge arbitrary, which was 
arranged on a class-rate basis. In 1907, when the supposed wiping out of the 
arbitrary took place, the first-class rate was raised to 88 cents a hundred, and 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 217 


so on down the line, on all classes of freight, on a percentage basis; and 
while it wiped out the arbitrary as an arbitrary, it raised the rail rates enough 
to partially offset the absorption of the bridge arbitrary by the railroads. 

Senator IIeed. That is the point I was trying to get at. 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir; that was the case at that time. 

Senator Reed. So that while up to the past few months there has been a 
discrimination in freight charges between East St. Louis and St. Louis, Mo., 
that has been recently practically wiped out? 

Mr. Toland. Yes; outside of the 150-mile limit and to some extent on coal 
within that limit. 

Senator Reed. And within the 150-mile limit there is still there a bridge- 
arbitrary charge or a charge which is the same thing in effect? 

Mr. Poland. Yes. On coal rates there is a bridge arbitrary of 15 cents a 
ton from East St. Louis to St. Louis, but the coal rate, in a 45-mile circle, 
which was formerly 85 cents, has been raised to 45. and in that way the matter 
has been adjusted seemingly to the satisfaction of the St. Louis people. 

Col. Newcomer. You mean the rate to East St. Louis has been raised, too? 

Mr. Poland. Roth to East St. Louis and St. Louis. 

Senator Reed. I do not know whether the commission understands what I 
mean. The freight used to be billed to East St. Louis, and when it went 
across the Mississippi River they had what is called a bridge arbitrary, which 
was an additional charge on that freight for crossing the bridge, which ran as 
high as five or six dollars a car for a carload of coal, and the result of that 
was that factories, in order to save that extra charge on coal and on other 
products, moved over to the Illinois side of the river from St. Louis, Mo., to 
East St. Louis, Ill. And then the history of it has been given by the witnesses. 

Col. Winslow. The gentleman from St. Louis stated the city was about to 
begin those terminals, but you do not expect to use the terminal, even if 
completed? 

Mr. Poland. We would use both terminals. We are on leased ground at 
East St. Louis, and we would likely use the St. Louis terminal unless they put 
the terminal charges too high, but we will this winter increase our facilities 
at East St. Louis. They are too small there now, although our dock is 76 by 
ISO. and we will have to have more room there. 

There was a statement made by Mr. Hill which I want to correct. One of 
you gentleman asked about the charges at the Kansas City dock—I believe 
Col. Newcomer. We pay $3 for every boat which lands at this dock, and we 
pay $2 for every barge that lands there. We pay 24 cents for every ton of 
freight that passes over the dock and 5 cents for every ton of freight that 
passes through the house. In addition to that, we furnish our own force, - 
the entire force at the dock. We pay for the electricity for running the crane 
and for lighting, and so forth. We pay all expense except the salary of the 
dock master. The city has a dock master, who is paid by them. All other 
expenses of the dock are borne by the navigation company. 

Senator Reed. What has that amounted to in the last year? 

Mr. Poland. Do you know, Mr. Mackie, what that has amounted to in the 
last year? 

Mr. Mackie. It is something like $2,000. 

Mr. Poland. It is something like $2,000. 

Senator Reed. That would not more than compensate the city for the man 
at the dock and the wear and tear on the dock? 

Mr. Poland. I do not believe it would. 

Col. Taylor. Mr. Hill’s statement, then, that the city merely got the expense 
of wear and tear on the dock was scarcely true? . 

Mr. Poland. No. 

Mr. Rland. Mr. Poland has some testimony about the terminal at Kansas 
City, which he has hardly time to read before adjournment. 

Chairman Black. I think we had better adjourn now until 8 o’clock. 

The board is adjourned until 8 o’clock this evening. 

EVENING SESSION, OCTOBER 19, 1915. 

Chairman Black. Please come to order, gentlemen. Will you go ahead with 
your witnesses, Congressman Borland, if you please? 

Congressman Borland. Yes. Mr. Poland, you may finish up what you have 

tf> Mr. e poLAND. Mr. Borland, I don’t know of anything else I had to say, unless 
you or Judge Bland had something. 


218 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 


Congressman Borland. I want to ask you this: In your experience of solicit¬ 
ing freight for your boat-line company, have you found that the growing 
improvements on the river and the consequent better time and service given by 
the boat-line company have been an important element in procuring the 
patronage of the shippers? 

Mr. Poland. The testimony of Mr. Mackie to-day about covered that. When 
we started in with this boat line there was probably not a shipper in Kansas 
City who had any confidence in the line. They were afraid of it. A good 
many of them had lost goods with previous boat lines in wrecks. In the last 
one, the Tennessee, some of our good patrons had lost. That was the last ven¬ 
ture. She is right down this side of Sibley now. We depended in the begin¬ 
ning very largely on sentiment and the loyalty of our stockholders to give 
us traffic. We could not offer service. We did offer 20 per cent saving in the 
freight rate, but the service was so extremely bad that the saving in the rate 
did not cut much figure. As the service improved, and I would say that the 
Government work improved the condition of the river, we got to making better 
time and got so we were running nights some on the up trip; and the last two 
years, especially this year, we have gone to the public on service and saving 
alone, and sentiment has not cut much ice in the solicitation of business 
during the last year. 

Congressman Borland. What is the present feeling of the shipping public 
toward your line now? 

Mr. Poland. Well, the feeling is, as expressed by a great many of the ship¬ 
pers, that they are now receiving practically as good service as they get by rail. 

Congressman Borland. Have you gained many new shippers during the sea¬ 
son of 1914 and 1915; that is, following the season of 1913, which was taken by 
the district officer as the basis of his report? 

Mr. Poland. We drew off our billing to-day rather hurriedly, so that this is 
not exactly correct. I had the boys in the office go over it hurriedly to-day. In 
1911 we had 63 shippers use the line; in 1912 there were 76; in 1913, 147: in 
1914, 221; in 1915, 285. It shows that the line is more generally used now 
than it was. 

Congressman Borland. What will be the effect on the boat-line traffic if this 
report is confirmed and the Government ceases this improvement work? 

Mr. Poland. Won’t be any boat line but for a very short period. 

Congressman Borland. That business that has been built up will be de¬ 
stroyed ? 

Mr. Poland. We have either got to keep on increasing or quit altogether. 
We can not go back now. If we even should curtail our service for a year, if 
for any reason next year we were not able to give as good or better service 
than we did this year, we will feel it right away, because the shippers will not 
stay with us on sentiment. We must now give them service, and it depends 
entirely on the action of the Government as to whether we can improve that 
service or keep up the service we are giving now. 

Congressman Borland. In regard to the question of whether the actual ton¬ 
nage carried by river in 1913 is a test of the commercial possibilities of the 
river, what would you say? 

Mr. Poland. I would say that 1913 was purely experimental; that it was not 
a criterion at all. We have had during the year 1915 as much as 5,000 and 6,000 
tons of freight offered to us in one week that we could not take on account of 
our limited capacity. Mr. Dickey has explained why our capacity is not 
greater, but we have had to book our freight to our present capacity, and we 
have turned down thousands and thousands of tons. 

Now, I want to give you a little figure right there. There are approximately 
12,000 barrels of flour manufactured in Kansas City every day. For every 
barrel of flour there is 70 to 76 pounds of by-product—bran and middlings. 
During the period from the 1st of March until the 1st of December the 
Kansas City millers alone can give to the boat line, figuring on 70 per cent of 
their output, 340,000 tons per annum. 

Senator Heed. Now, may I interrupt? Why do you figure on 70 per cent of 
their output? Have you any reason to believe that you can get that? 

Mr. Poland. About 10 per cent of their output is for local consumption. These 
are the figures of the millers. About 10 per cent of their output is for local 
consumption and about 20 per cent of their output is fast freight, wire orders, 
such as “ship me three cars to-day, fast freight,” and that sort of thing, and 
about 70 per cent of it is figured by the millers as available tonnage—slow 
freight. About 70 per cent of the tonnage is now traveling slow freight. It is 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 219 


traveling by rail to Chicago or by rail to St. Louis and seeking a water haul 
over tlie Great Lakes. 

Senator Heed. You figure you would get it, then, because you would give a 
lower rate? 

Mr. Poland. During the summer months, Senator, practically the output of 
the Minneapolis mills goes by water by tbe Lakes, and the millers of Kansas 
City have been laboring under a differential of 2 cents per hundred pounds 
higher rate than the millers of Minneapolis, although the short-line mileage 
from Kansas City to New York is shorter than tlie short-line mileage from 
Minneapolis to New York. They see in the boat line their only salvation for 
meeting tbe Minneapolis rate. 

Senator Reed. Well, will they patronize it? 

Mr. Poland. Patronize it? We have not been able to scratch the surface in 
our flour tonnage this year because of our limited capacity. 

Senator Reed. You mean by that that you have not been able to supply the 
demand? 

Mr. Poland. I mean by that that our barge capacity and our towboat capacity 
is not great enough to take the downstream tonnage. 

Senator Reed. That they offer? 

Mr. Poland. That they, offer us. Now, that is only the Kansas City mills. 
That does not include the Kansas mills and does not include the Nebraska, 
Colorado, or Oklahoma mills. They could supply several times that tonnage. 

Congressman Borland. Any further questions, Senator? 

Senator Reed. Well, when you are through, Mr. Borland. 

Congressman Borland. I had asked you to explain why the tonnage actually 
carried in 1913 was not a test of tbe commercial use of the river? 

Mr. Poland. We had not started then. We are in our infancy now—absolutely 
in our infancy. We are trying to keep pace with the improvement of the river; 
that is about all. 

Congressman Borland. And you are talking from the experience of a single 
boat line? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. I think that is all. 

Chairman Black. Mr. Poland, you spoke a number of times of tbe tonnage 
from Nebraska and Kansas points away from the river. Would you expect to 
get tonnage shipped here on the short haul by rail and then transferred to the 
boat? 

Mr. Poland. Absolutely. 

Chairman Black. You would? 

Mr. Poland. Yes. The interstate commerce law as laid down by the com¬ 
mission, or as interpreted by them, is such that a steamboat line might—well, 
I might say compel. It is not a good word to use, but they have stated that a 
railroad carrier can not exact more for its haul in connection with a steamboat 
line than it is currently receiving on business received from and delivered to a 
railway carrier. 

Now, if the rates from Kansas are made to the Mississippi River, which they 
are, they make through Kansas City by all the lines running in here and through 
here. Those rates can all be made rail-and-water just as rates are made from 
Chicago to New York water-and-rail. There is no reason why the steamboat 
line on the river—this river or the Mississippi or any other—should be placed 
in any position other than that of the present status of the lake lines on the 
Great Lakes. They should participate in the through rates. A steamboat line, 
under the old manner of handling traffic on a steamboat line, made a rate from 
port to port. That is, the business that is hauled to the port by wagon—hauled 
to the line by wagon and hauled away from the line by wagon—never can and 
never will be a success. The steamboat line has got to meet the idea of trans¬ 
portation as it exists to-day. The shippers are not all located along the water 
front as they used to be. They are back along switch tracks and all around 
through the Blue Valley here and up the Kaw. Now, we reach out to Argentine 
and reach out to the Blue Valley. A man in the Blue Valley or anywhere in 
the big manufacturing district in Kansas City or way over here, like Peet Bros, 
or the Southwest Milling Co. in Argentine, knows he can load his cars right 
at his mills and ship them by boat line just the same as he would by rail. We 
absorb that switching charge. If it is a St. Louis shipment to St. Louis proper, 
we absorb the switching here to our boat or dock and take it to East St. Louis 
and load it on the car and switch it back into St. Louis, making exactly the 
same delivery as a railroad would give them. That is the only way a boat line 
can ever be successful. 


220 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 

Judge Bland. You mean where they cooperate with railway lines? 

Mr. Poland. You must cooperate; have to. 

Judge Bland. It could be successful, however, if the channel were used on 
down the river to the Gulf? 

Mr. Poland. Oh yes, Judge; that contemplates the use of the river to the 
Gulf. But the boat line, to be successful from Kansas City, must reach out be¬ 
yond here and take the products to the Gulf. We can not stop at Kansas City. 

Judge Bland. Both by rail and river? 

Mr. Poland. Yes; they should both work together and must work together. 
I made the statement before adjournment that 97 per cent of all the freight 
that came to us came to us in cars. That tells the story. If we do not cooperate 
with switching lines at each terminus we would only get 3 per cent of our ton¬ 
nage. 

Judge Bland. Now, those cars are delivered right at your dock in St. Louis? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. Or wharf or dock. 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. And do you use the trap cars in St. Louis, Mr. Poland? 

Mr. Poland. Yes. 

The East St. Louis lines, as I explained before, since 1907, the rates from 
the East have all applied to St. Louis. The rates from the West have also ap¬ 
plied to East St. Louis. So they overlap over the river. A trap car, as it is 
commonly called, is an emergency car made up at the freight depot and switched 
to an industry or factory or warehouse or to a delivering station. In St. Louis 
and East St. Louis trap cars are made up and sent over to the Tenth Street 
station on the terminal for delivery, and they will pick up all miscellaneous 
consignments and load in that car. 

Judge Bland. It is L. C. L.? 

Mr. Poland. L. C. L. shipments of G,000 pounds and over. Our dock being 
on the river and on the Wiggins Ferry track, is intermediate, or between rather, 
the East St. Louis depots and St. Louis deliveries. Therefore, it took a little 
arguing to show our railroad friends that that was a fact some four years ago, 
and that those rates from the East must apply to our dock, as they apply to 
St. Louis. Trap cars ran right along the same track where our spur ran off 
the main line; and to-day and for the last three years or four years all the 
railroads at East St. Louis load trap cars of miscellaneous freight to our dock 
and absorb the switching. On the eastbound business they absorb the switch¬ 
ing from our dock to their rails on through business. That shows the friendly 
spirit on the part of our railroad friends, but it was not entirely friendship. 
It was simply a case of have to. 

Judge Bland. Now that explains your methods and trap-car service. You 
have local shipments originating in St. Louis. How are they handled? How 
is that done? 

Mr. Poland. We have the same arrangement that all east-side railroads have. 
The St. Louis Transfer Co. has three stations in St. Louis for receiving and de¬ 
livering freight, and the Columbia Transfer Co. has three stations in the north- 
central and southern part of the city. Those two transfer companies represent 
us just as they do the railroad companies; and any shipper in St. Louis can 
deliver to the nearest depot of the transfer company and they receive the freight 
for the navigation company and put it on a wagon and haul to our dock. 

Judge Bland. What is the charge for that? 

Mr. Poland. Charge is 5 cents per hundred, and we pay it. 

Judge Bland. You absorb that charge? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir; just exactly as the railroad company would and at the 
same figure they do. 

Judge Bland. That explains the terminal conditions at the port of St. Louis? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. When you receive a carload shipment for West Bottoms 
shippers, for example, or Rosedale or Argentine- 

Mr. Poland. When we receive a carload shipment for the West Bottoms or 
Rosedale or Argentine, where the switching does not exceed $9 per car— 
and that takes in practically every industry and manufacturing plant in Kansas 
City—we unload the freight direct from the barge, sometimes without its touch¬ 
ing the dock, into cars and switch it to their plant and absorb the switching. 

Judge Bland. You absorb that charge? 

Mr. Poland. They have no impediment in the moving of the freight by boat 
any more than in shipping by rail. 



MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 221 


Judge Bland. So you make carload delivery to any factory or wholesale house 
in Kansas City just the same as the railway does? 

Mr. Poland. To anybody where we can make track delivery. 

Judge Bland. Now, the L. C. L. shipments here are hauled by the shippers 
themselves? 

Mr. Poland. Yes; just as from the railroads. 

Judge Bland. From the freight station? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. By L. C. L. shipments I mean less-than-carload shipments. 

Mr. Poland. Less-than-carload shipments. 

Judge Bland. As no doubt the commission understand. But then, Mr. Poland, 

I understand your position is that you act exactly like the railroad except that 
you physically transfer from the car to your boat instead of hauling the car 
continuously, and the expenses are practically absorbed in your rate, which is 
SO per cent of the rail rate? 

Mr. Poland. Yes. We perform the complete act of transportation. We do 
not put any burden on the shipper. And I maintain that the reason that there 
are no steamboat lines in existence to-day that are handling any volume of 
business is because they have not done that, and that is the reason of the 
nonsuccess of the large number pf lines that are operating to-day on the 
Mississippi River unsuccessfully. I know of one line operating some five or 
six boats where they depend entirely upon the passenger traffic, and their 
traffic manager made the statement that they did not average over 40 tons 
of freight per trip for the reason that they have to depend upon the wagon-haul 
freight. The dock of every boat line in the country is located at the most un¬ 
desirable place for a man to get his freight to. He has to haul it either down 
or up the hill to get it to or from the boat. It is always at the lowest place. 

Judge Bland. Have you any figures showing the cost per ton for handling 
at your terminals, both Kansas City and St. Louis? 

Mr. Poland. We had a cost last year of 63 cents per ton for two handlings. 

I want to give you a little instance there. At the lake hearing before, the 
Interstate Commerce Commission of the various lines of railroad seeking to 
retain control of their lake lines the lines put on the stand Mr. H. T. Douglass, 
manager of the Western Transit Co., and Mr. Signor, the commissioner of the 
lake lines. They testified that it cost them 27 cents a ton to handle flour 
from the cars into the boats at Chicago and 27 cents a ton to take it out of 
the boats and put it in the cars at Buffalo, making 54 cents for the two 
handlings. I made it my business to ascertain if that was correct, and I found 
that they had yearly contracts with Connors of Buffalo to do their stevedoring 
on that basis, 27 cents per ton for flour, so they told us. Now, we had kept 
and really to-day are only keeping an actual account of our two handlings of 
all classes of merchandise. So we took one barge and loaded 27 carloads of 
flour in it at the dock and had our men keep an exact account, even down to 
the electricity used, and we loaded them from the dock at Kansas City into 
the barge and piled it up for 12 cents a ton. We took it down to 'St. Louis 
and ran it up over the conveyer through the house and into the cars and fig¬ 
ured in every item of expense, even the lining of the cars with paper—flour 
cars must be lined with paper and the men must go around and drive the nail 
heads all in, and those things, every item, were figured in the cost, and we 
loaded those cars at 16 cents a ton, making the two handlings for 28 cents 
against the lake 54. 

Judge Bland. Do you know what the handling by roustabout labor is per ton? 

Mr. Poland. It is all according to the disposition of the roustabout. Some¬ 
times you get it down to 80 cents a ton and sometimes $1.60; but usually it 
runs $1.20 to $1.40 a ton. When Mr. Cavanaugh, of St. Louis, was operating 
the Edward Green he brought up a barge of sugar from New Orleans and sim¬ 
ply unloaded it from the barge onto the levee and piled it up on the rock levee 
of St. Louis, and I happen to know it cost him 80 cents a ton. 

Judge Bland. You say it depends on the disposition of the roustabout.. 
You never saw any of them have a disposition to minimize the cost, did you? 

Mr. Poland. No; they sometimes hold you up when they have a chance; 
but it cost him 80 cents to handle his sugar from the barge and pile it on the 
levee and make levee delivery. Now, that same sugar could have come up 
on a barge to our dock at East St. Louis and been handled through the dock 
by conveyer for not over 30 cents a ton; could have been switched across to its 
final destination at Cupples Station in the Hutchinson warehouse, right where 


222 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 


lie wanted it, right next to his elevator, for under 30 cents per ton for inter¬ 
mediate handling, which put it where the man wanted it, as against 80 cents a 
ton and putting it only on the levee where he had to pay 5 cents a hundred 
or a dollar a ton to haul. 

Judge Bland. A dollar a ton more? 

Mr. Poland. Yes. Now, in that case the rate on the sugar was 17 cents and 
I think they made a rate of 10 cents from New Orleans to St. Louis, to the 
levee. And 5 cents a hundred added to the 10 cents to get it into the ware¬ 
house, where he had the exact railroad delivery, which made the total cost 
or rate of 15 cents per hundred pounds, a saving of only 2 cents per hundred 
pounds on that cargo of sugar. Now, if they had carried that on, I will say, 
a scientific-rate basis—and when you take the present rate basis of the country 
it is scientific, and even if you charge a per cent of the rate you are still on a 
scientific basis—if they had charged them 80 per cent of the rate they would 
have saved the shipper 3.4 cents per hundred pounds instead of 2 cents per 
hundred pounds, and they would have put his sugar in his warehouse in 
perfect condition instead of its being piled out in the weather on a levee, and 
they would have made more money themselves out of it. So it would have 
been a saving all around. It is only the matter of the difference between river 
terminals and no river terminals. 

Congressman Borland. The difference between modern methods and old 
methods ? 

Mr. Poland. The difference between modern methods and old-fashioned meth¬ 
ods—old-style methods of handling freight. 

Col. Abbot. I would like to ask whether that line of steamers on the Missis¬ 
sippi River would be afforded your dock facilities for handling their freight? 

Mr. Poland. They would not be afforded the facilities of our dock, but they 
could have made a dock of their own and should have had a dock before they 
began to operate, and very probably if they had had a dock they would be 
operating to-day; but they did not have the facilities. 

Col. Abbot. And if they were running in combination with your line for 
shipments to Kansas City, then they would have got the benefit of your ter¬ 
minals? 

Mr. Poland. Our dock. They were exactly in the same position as if a 
railroad would build from the city limits of St. Louis to the city limits of 
Kansas City and attempt to do business without any terminals. They made 
the big mistake of starting before they had terminals. Without terminals 
they could not succeed; they were foreordained to failure before they started. 

Judge Bland. Have you any knowledge as to the city of St. Louis’ plant— 
the municipal dock and wharfage there? Are they very extensive? 

Mr. Poland. I know from the papers and from talking with St. Louis people 
that they are now planning and will go ahead and build another new belt line 
terminal there to cost about $300,000. 

Judge Bland. Mr. Coyle brought that out. 

Mr. Poland. Yes. 

Judge Bland. Senator Reed has some questions. 

Senator Reed. Just to conclude this terminal question, you feel now that 
you have advanced to a point where you have your terminal facilities practi¬ 
cally completed at both Kansas City and St. Louis? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir; I would not want to put it that way, hardly. I would 
not want to say practically completed, Senator. 

Senator Reed. Well, in good working condition? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. We are students and are improving that condition 
all the time; but we believe and we know that we have to-day the only and 
consequently the best river terminals on interior waters. 

Col. Abbot. And their capacity is comparable with the amount of freight 
now offered, is it? 

Mr. Poland. Our East St. Louis terminals are too small to-day. We will 
have to extend them this winter, possibly temporarily, while we see what 
St. Louis does; but we are not waiting for them. We will have to extend our 
terminals at East St. Louis this winter to take care of next year’s business. 

Col. Abbot. That is one reason you were not willing to say they were com¬ 
pleted ? 

Mr. Poland. No; we are a long ways from completion. 

Senator Reed. Now, one further question as to intermediate points and such 
places as Jefferson City. What are your facilities there for taking on and put¬ 
ting off freight? 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 223 


Mr. Poland. None whatever. At Jefferson City we must deliver just below 
the bridge on the only practicable levee there is. The railroad has the entire 
water front at Jefferson City, except a strip of perhaps 150 yards in length 
just below the bridge, and which is filled up with shanty boats. That is the 
only place in Jefferson City to-day where we can get in with a steamboat. 

Senator Reed. Well, do the railroads in Jefferson City furnish switching facili¬ 
ties so that plants can be reached and cars loaded at the various plants of the 
city? 

Mr. Poland. They do not now; but the railroads at Jefferson City- 

Senator Reed (interrupting). If they were to do that then you could compel 
the use of those switches? 

Mr. Poland. Senator, we would not have to use the word “ compel.” The 
railroads to-day recognize this line as a factor in the transportation business, 
and if we had a terminal at Jefferson City with a track connection we would 
have no difficulty whatever in getting switching rates to all points around Jeffer¬ 
son City. 

Senator Reed. And that would be true now in other towns along the river? 

Mr. Poland. That would be true in other towns along the river. 

Senator Reed. What I am getting at is whether you have any wharf down 
there. 

Mr. Poland. There is none there; but the Commercial Club of Jefferson City 
and Mayor Thomas told me in February last that they would build a wharf 
within the next year. 

Senator Reed. How about other towns—Glasgow and other towns along the 
river? 

Mr. Poland. Glasgow has done nothing. Washington is now building a ter¬ 
minal. 

Senator Reed. Washington is building one, and if you had one at Glasgow it 
would be just that much more advantage to you, would it not? 

Mr. Poland. Oh, yes. 

Senator Reed. And so on down the river, as your business increases, the build¬ 
ing of wharves will necessarily follow? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. 

Senator Reed. And what is the disposition of these towns, speaking of them 
generally, to assist in that? 

Mr. Poland. The towns, speaking generally—there are a few dead ones—but 
generally speaking they are very much alive to the situation and are to-day 
seriously considering putting in terminals to invite us in. 

Senator Reed. Now, with all those conditions coming in, your ability to navi¬ 
gate the river and to handle freight at less cost will constantly be increased? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. I will give you an instance- 

Senator Reed (interrupting). So that even the work of transportation on the 
river as it is is handicapped by the fact that you have not yet acquired all the 
facilities in the way of wharves? 

Mr. Poland. That is, increased development. 

Senator Reed. It is that that you need? 

Mr. Poland. It is something that we miss and must have, but it is something 
that is coming and will be done. But I want to give you an instance right 
there: At Jefferson City, Hermann, and Washington there are three large shoe 
plants. We have been offered and urged to take the business of those plants— 
the output of those plants—to St. Louis, and we have handled some thousands 
of cases of shoes; but in order to get those shoes we must go in with our barge 
and boat and tie up and wait until they haul from the factory, because there is 
no receiving plant there. There is no dock of any kind. Now, it is an absolute 
fact that very often it costs us more in lay-up time and expense of crew waiting 
there for that traffic than we get out of the traffic. It is more than our freight 
earnings. 

Senator Reed. Now, is there enough freight there to pay to build a receiving 
station? 

Mr. Poland. There is enough freight between St. Louis and Jefferson City 
alone to keep a good boat busy all the time, making two round trips a week to 
St. Louis. 

Senator Reed. You mean by that to say, then, that there is enough business 
to warrant the building of these receiving facilities? 

Mr. Poland. Yes; the business at Jefferson City alone. 

Senator Reed. So that, in a word, you are still handicapped by lack of these 
terminal facilities at the intervening points between St. Louis and Kansas City? 

Mr. Poland. We are. 




224 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Senator Reed. And they are in process, to a greater or less extent, of being 
now put in? 

Mr. Poland. Yes; the subject is being agitated in all those towns. 

Senator Reed. And that has, of course, kept down your tonnage in its present 
condition? 

Mr. Poland. Yes; very largely. 

Senator Reed. Now, there was another question here. Perhaps I might eluci¬ 
date it by the statement that the statement has been made here that you have 
not yet run at a profit. What is the fact with reference as to whether you are 
able to load your boats to their capacity on account of river conditions? 

Mr. Poland. Well, I will give you an instance. 

Senator Reed. Give me a generalization and then your instances. 

Mr. Poland. Well, I can speak on these instances a good deal more concretely 
than I can on generalization. If you gentlemen will go down to the dock to¬ 
morrow you will see a barge there loaded. The barge has in it 335 tons. We 
have loaded that barge to what our pilots tell us the lowest place of the river 
will allow, and we have loaded it to try to be safe and get through expedi¬ 
tiously. That barge should to-day be taking 500 tons down, and we can take the 
500 tons from here to St. Louis just as cheaply as to take the 335. We have 
on track to go into the barge Beta, which is arriving to-day, 27 cars. Half of 
this should go into this barge that is going down on this trip, but we can not 
put them in; we haven’t got the water. We have it from here down a distance, 
but when we get to Baltimore Bar, or get down, probably, around Stanley Island, 
or something like that, the channel branches out and divides into four or five 
channels, and we don’t know where the best one is, and so we have got to load 
safe, and this barge will go out with 335 tons in it. 

Senator Reed. Now, does that condition, illustrated by that instance, occur 
frequently or habitually, or how often? 

Mr. Poland. Practically all the time. 

Chairman Black. Mr. Poland, you speak about the minimum depth, which, 
of course, limits the depth of loading. Is there a very great difference in the 
depths on the crossings? Are there one or two or three or four points between 
here and St. Louis that are apt to be worse than others? Not the same point 
always, I don’t mean, but I want to know whether those crossings have about 
the same average depth, or are always a few different from the others? 

Mr. Poland. Those crossings change. In the fall of 1913 and the spring of 
1914 we had trouble at Stanley Island. That was a bad place. In the fail of 
1913 we had a great deal of trouble at Isabel. Our fleet was at Isabel for a 
number of days. We unloaded a barge there on lighters and brought it up to 
Jefferson City and put the freight on cars and sent it in- 

Chairman Black (interrupting). You don’t understand me yet. 

Mr. Poland. Now, I was going to tell you this, that at Isabel the Govern¬ 
ment work is completed and there is 8 or 9 feet of water there in low water. 
Plenty of water there. It is a good channel all through there. 

Senator Reed. For how far? 

Mr. Poland. Well, 8 or 9 miles. I don’t know where they do pinch out below 
there. It is quite a distance- 

Senator Reed (interrupting). How much work was put in there, now, to 
produce that improved condition at Isabel? 

Mr. Poland. I think the engineer can tell you about that. My impression is 
three dikes were put in there that must have been twelve to seventeen hundred 
feet long—big fellows—but they have done the work all right. 

Chairman Black. Mr. Poland, you don’t get my idea yet, or I can not get 
the information from you or from anyone else apparently. 

Mr. Poland. I will try to give it to you if I can. 

Chairman Black. The Government has been carrying on this work progres¬ 
sively. It is perfectly understood, of course, that we can not do it all at once. 
The work must be progressive, and hence for a long time there will be reaches 
in the river, even if the work is pushed as hard as it can be, where there will 
be trouble. Now, we know these bars are shifting; but what I wanted to 
know is whether there is always in this intermediate reach one, two, or three 
points where temporary work would give marked relief, even if it were tempo¬ 
rary, or whether those reaches have such uniform shallowness all the way 
through that you can not do anything by a temporary measure? Do you 
understand? 

Mr. Poland. I understand exactly what you are after. Those shallow places 
are becoming fewer each year. And each year there are one or two where a 




MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 225 


little temporary work would be of great benefit. We have thought a dredge— 
there are no dredges in this river—to repair or to dredge out those few points 
would be the thing.- That is an engineering proposition that I know nothing 
about; but they are becoming fewer each year. 

Chairman Black. That is what I want to know. You can see if there were 
a very long reach of extremely bad water one dredge, or two dredges, or 
three dredges would not do any good; but if there are only two or three places 
each year, it may be, at various points of the river—but not more than two or 
three—which have to be cut through, then a dredge might be able to do some 
good. That is the information I have been trying to get. It is a temporary 
expedient, of course. 

Mr. Poland. The experience in 1013 was that there were several places. In 
1914 several- 

Chairman Black (interrupting). Several? How many? 

Mr. Poland. Say four or five or six in 1913; not over three—and I don’t 
remember now of more than tw T o—last year. But in none of those was the 
stretch long. It was a short portion of river—just a few hundred yards—but it 
was sufficient to put us out of business. 

Chairman Black. Of course, as long as they are there. This year how many? 

Mr. Poland. This year there is only one that I know of that has given any 
trouble. 

Congressman Borland. You have had exceptionally high water this year? 

Mr. Poland. Exceptionally high water this year. There has been an unusual 
stage of water. There was one gravel bar gave us trouble in 1913 that would 
have been dredge work; but, as I said a while ago, wherever this work is com¬ 
pleted—wherever you engineers have gone into a bad piece of river; and you 
have gone into the worst pieces of the river—your work has been effective. 

Chairman Black. Oh, I haven’t any doubt of that at all. It is perfectly 
clear. 

Mr. Poland. At Isabel, after you completed that little piece of work, it gave 
us probably 10 miles of good river below—splendid river. 

Chairman Black. Well, you have answered what I have wanted to find out. 

Mr. Poland. And we are getting less trouble each year. 

Senator Reed. In connection with that, there was a stretch of the river below 
Jefferson City improved some years ago, wasn’t there? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. 

Senator Reed. What are the termini of that improvement? 

Mr. Poland. Well, that is from the Gasconade, running up to about Jefferson 
City. 

Senator Reed. About how many miles? Approximately about 40 miles? 

Mr. Poland. About 40 miles ; 38 to 40. 

Senator Reed. Do you know whether that was the worst piece of the Mis¬ 
souri River between here and St. Louis before that work was done? 

Mr. Poland. I do not. That was before my time. 

Senator Reed. Well, I think the engineers’ reports probably show.' What is 
the condition of that piece of the river to-day? 

Mr. Poland. Good piece of river. So far it has lasted. Before it was im¬ 
proved it was the worst spot in the river, and to-day that river from Stanley 
Island down to the Gasconade is splendid. 

Senator Reed. Where is Stanley Island? 

Mr. Poland. Up around Murray bend above Jefferson City. 

Senator Reed. So that work, put in there years ago—many years ago—has 
made that part of the river a success? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir ; it is fine. 

Senator Reed. And it has remained so ever since? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir; we have had no trouble in there at all. 

Senator Reed. I want to go back to the question I had up with you before. 
I want to go into that question of the cost. Taking into consideration your 
experience in navigating this river with experimental boats and with the river 
in its unimproved condition, and your experience as to the result of the improve¬ 
ments that have been made, both in your boats and in the river, I wish you 
would tell the board what your judgment is as to whether this river can be 
navigated at a profit at the rate that you are now charging, providing the river 
is placed in navigable condition. 

Mr. Poland. I do not believe there is any doubt about that. There is not in 
my mind. I am only the traffic man, and not connected with the operating 

H. Doc. 4G3, 64-1-15 




226 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


department; but I have been at it four years—intimately connected with this 
company—and I know absolutely that it cal be a big success. I believe that 
one factor means more to Kansas City than any other factor in her future. 

Senator Reed. But I am speaking about the profits of the boat line. 

Mr. Poland. The profits of the boat line—the boat line can be operated at a 
profit at even less rates than they are charging to-day. 

Col. Abbot. And on a larger scale? 

Mr. Poland. And on a larger scale; yes, sir. Mr. Mackie spoke about our 
building the big barges and how we had to back up onto smaller equipment. We 
ought to be operating the big barges and the larger boats. We should not be 
confined to a 600-horsepower boat operating on 3 feet of water. That has never 
been known before. We have had to do things that steamboat men said we 
could not do. We bad to lighten the Scott last year to 30 inches or 32, or some¬ 
thing of that kind. Those things ought not to be necessary. But on a 6-foot 
channel there is no limit to the amount of business we could handle. 

Col. Winslow. Mr. Poland, there is one question I should like to ask you 
there: Has the business your line has been doing had any effect upon rail rates 
between St. Louis and Kansas City as yet? 

Mr. Poland. No, sir. 

Col. Winslow. Well, that is not a surprise, as you have only been carrying 
about 30,000 tons. 

Mr. Poland. We would not expect to. 

Col. Winslow. But if you multiply that by 10, is it not probable that the 
railroads would have to meet your rate? 

Mr. Poland. You are asking me—I have got an awful vision when you come 
to think of this thing and looking into the future. I have a great deal of confi¬ 
dence in this thing, and if I were to tell you what I thought of it it would take 
me all evening; but I want to say to you that water rates made Chicago. Chi¬ 
cago was at the western end of water transportation when the old trunk-line 
committee, thirty-odd or forty years ago, made New York and Chicago 100 per 
cent and based all rates on that stretch. It was because Chicago was the end 
of navigation. Now, I am just fanatic enough to believe that Kansas City is 
the western end of navigation to-day. She is at the bend of the river. The 
whole Southwest is tributary to Kansas City. Its tonnage, its business, is tribu¬ 
tary to this town. I firmly believe that the future of Kansas City is unlimited, 
and it needs water transportation and water rates to make it—to make this the 
distributing center of the AVest. I can not see anything to it but that. 

Judge Bland. Supplementing the question of the member of the board there 
as to whether or not it bad any effect on the railway rates- 

Mr. Poland (interrupting). Not yet. 

Judge Bland (continuing). Do you know why? Have you any knowledge of 
any contemplated action or of any testimony by railway-traffic men relative to 
the influence of the river upon the rail rate? 

Mr. Poland. In the interstate commerce hearings at Topeka—there were two 
interstate commerce hearings had there; that is, long and short haul hearings, 
where the railroads defended their rates. The western cities were claiming they 
should be on the same basis as Kansas City. The railroads defended the propo¬ 
sition on the basis that the rate to Kansas City was a water-compelled rate 
basis, and that she enjoyed the rates she had because of through water trans¬ 
portation to the Gulf. They submitted a lot of our tonnage figures. They based 
tlieir present rate fabric on water competition in Kansas City. In another 
hearing of the same cases, coupled with one or two more, the general freight 
agent of one of the St. Louis lines made the statement that the water competi¬ 
tion between St. Louis and Kansas City was a factor, and so great a factor 
that his department, or the traffic department of his railroad, had seriously 
considered meeting the water rates between St. Louis and Kansas City. 

Congressman Borland. That was one of the lines between Kansas City and 
St. Louis? 

Mr. Poland. Between Kansas City and St. Louis. 

Col. Taylor. If that happened, if they made the water rate, what would be 
the result? Don't that give the freight to the railroads? 

Mr. Poland. Not as long as we still have pencils to sharpen up and make 
some more rates. 

Col. Winslow. Do you figure that you could still keep to the SO per cent 
basis ? 

Mr. Poland. I believe we can maintain the 80 per cent basis on any rate the 
railroad may make, provided you gentlemen stay with us. 



MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 227 


Col. Taylor. You see, in many cases improvements are made, and they put 
the boat line on, and the railroads put their rates down, and then the boat lines 
go out of business, and the Government is then put in the position of having 
spent a large sum of money to bring about a reduction in railroad rates. There 
seems to be other ways of accomplishing that than by spending the Govern¬ 
ment’s money. 

Senator Reed. The railroads can not do that under the Federal law. 

Col. Taylor. They can put the rates down. 

Senator Reed. But they have to keep them down. 

Col. Taylor. They have to keep them down, but nevertheless the boat line 
has gone out of business. 

Senator Reed. Colonel, you would have to consider this thing further, that 
whenever they reduce their rates to a point with some sinister purpose of that 
kind in view, immediately that becomes an evidentiary fact for the commission 
to reduce their rates to other points. It is material evidence against them at 
all other similar points. So that a general reduction is bound to follow, and 
the railroads can not do that any more. 

Col. Taylor. But it has been done a good many times in the past. 

Senator Reed. A great many times in the past, when the railroads made their 
rates arbitrarily, .when they made a rate to a certain point as they saw lit and 
to another point a greater rate, just fixing the rate to suit themselves. They 
could cut and cover themselves. But now, when the Interstate Commerce Com¬ 
mission is regulating all of these rates, and when a schedule of rates must be 
filed, it is perfectly manifest that if they file a rate to Kansas City way below 
what it was at similar points in the country, that would be used against them 
as evidence on all the other points and would result in a reduction everywhere. 
So that they can not stand it. Besides, when they lower a rate that way it can 
not be changed for two years; so it is too destructive. 

Col. Taylor. But they do do that. Take the rates between New Orleans and 
Memphis. They are very much lower than the corresponding rates to points 
a little oft' the Mississippi River. 

Senator Reed. Oh, yes; that is because of water competition, based upon 
river-transportation rates. 

Mr. Poland. Wait! Let me answer that. There is no boat line on the Mis¬ 
sissippi River between New Orleans and Memphis, or any other river- 

Col. Taylor (interrupting). That is because of railroad competition. 

Mr. Poland (continuing)—to compare with this line, and I will tell you why 
from a traffic standpoint. They can meet the rate from Memphis to New 
Orleans to put the boat line out of business, but they can make their rates 4 or 
5 or 6 or 8 cents higher than the river rate and still get business, because there 
is no boat line at Memphis or anywhere on the Mississippi River equipped to 
handle tonnage. They can only handle the freight hauled to them in wagons, 
and it would not pay any railroad company to go after a boat line's business 
of that kind. The amount of tonnage that could be hauled to or from a line 
by wagon would be so small that it would not pay a railroad company to go 
after it. Now, a boat line equipped as this boat line is, with terminals, and 
able to protect itself, knowing exactly where it stands before the law and the 
interstate-commerce law and the public-utilities law of the State of Missouri, 
does not have to fear anything of that kind. We have a standing; we have a 
right in court; and there is nothing to fear on that score whatever. It would 
be a much harder proposition to put a boat line out of business that had 
terminals and had an opportunity to reach the shipping public than it would 
be a boat line that was helpless and simply depended upon port-to-port business 
that came to them by wagon. 

Col. Taylor. Still, isn’t it a fact that rates are very much lower between 
New Orleans and Memphis than at off-the-river points? 

Mr. Poland. Yes. 

Col. Taylor. The result is that it has put the boats out of business, no matter 
how little business they do. That is one reason- 

Mr. Poland (interrupting). Well, I maintain a boat line to-day can operate 
between Memphis and New Orleans by equipping itself properly and make 
money on the present rates. But they must equip themselves properly. The 
'insurance rate on traffic between Memphis and New Orleans on the class of 
boats that are engaged in that traffic is $1.40 on the hundred dollars. That is 
enough to squeeze any boat line out of business, let alone any other competition. 
The insurance alone would eat them up. I do not believe the railroads are as 



228 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

bad as some people think they are. I do not believe the railroads have done 
as much to put the boats out of business as they have been given credit for. 
I think the boats have put themselves out of business. 

Congressman Borland. You think, then, that if the boat line is equipped to 
meet modern conditions of interchange traffic with railroads and with switch 
lines and has proper terminals operated at each port to lessen the cost, and 
with proper barges made fireproof so that they have proper marine insurance, 
and all these problems of modern transportation solved, you think it can hold 
its own now? 

Mr. Poland. I think so. 

Congressman Borland. You think those facilities- 

Mr. Poland (interrupting). I think it can meet competition anywhere, no 
matter what the competition is. 

Senator Reed. Assuming, now, that the railroads, in order to put the boat 
line out of business, were to reduce their rates to a point where you found it 
impossible to compete, with the river as improved and the boat line improved 
to the point we hope the river will be improved and to the point that you con¬ 
template improving your boat service—assuming that that was done, can you 
give this board any idea what it would mean in the saving of freights to the 
shippers of the great Southwest? Wouldn’t it fix this river two or three times 
over ? 

Mr. Poland. Well, if we could be assured that would be the case, I believe 
it would pay Kansas City to fix the river itself. If this boat line should be 
successful in putting Kansas City on a real and not a theoretical water-com¬ 
pelled rate basis, and the railroads put the boat line out of business, Kansas 
City would be forever the gainer and the West would be the gainer by it way 
beyond any cost of improving this river. 

Senator Reed. That would mean a reduction not only on the traffic carried 
on the river, but it would mean reduction on all kinds of traffic carried on the 
railroads? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. 

Senator Reed. Now, there are one or two little matters I wanted to take up 
with you. You have spoken of ton-miles. I want to have in the record what 
you mean by ton-mile. 

Mr. Poland. Well, the carrying of a ton a mile. If we carry a ton from St. 
Louis to Kansas Clity, 408 miles, that is 408 ton-miles. 

Senator Reed. So that the mere amount of tonnage carried on a boat on the 
Mississippi River a distance of 150 miles is not comparable with the same 
amount of tonnage carried 408 miles? 

Mr. Poland. It is equal to less than one-half of the tonnage. 

Senator Reed. Of the mile tonnage. 

Mr. Poland. If, for instance, we carry 30,000 tons from St. Louis to Kansas 
City in the year 1915, which we will, we carry it 408 miles. Now, that is equal 
to 60,000 tons carried on the Mississippi River 200 miles, or from Cairo to the 
mouth of the Missouri River. 

Senator Reed. I am getting at a very concrete matter here. If boat lines 
operating on the Mississippi River from St. Louis to Cairo, a distance of 
approximately 150 miles, carried 265,000 tons of freight, if they carry that the 
same distance as the distance from Kansas City to St. Louis, which is 408 
miles, it would amount to almost three times the tonnage properly estimated? 

Mr. Poland. Yes; two and a half times. 

Senator Reed. And when you carry 30,000 tons from Kansas City to St. 
Louis, a distance of 408 miles, it would equal 90,000 tons, or approximately 
that, carried from St. Louis to Cairo? 

Mr. Poland. Very close to it. 

Senator Reed. Now, another question I want to ask you in order to clear the 
record. You have stated that the percentage of high-class freight now carried 
by the boats is less than any former year. Is this because of the decrease in 
the amount of high-class freight carried or because of increase in the amount 
of low-class freight carried? 

Mr. Poland. The high-class freight has increased, but the low-class freight 
has increased so much more rapidly that it has brought down the proportion 
of high-class freight as compared with the total. 

Senator Reed. You are not, then, losing out on your high-class freight’ 

Mr. Poland. Oh, no; it is gaining all the time. We have not lost a single 
shipper that I know of in the last four years. They have stuck to us 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 229 


Senator Reed. You spoke of a rate which you undertook to have made a 
joint rate with the railroads on certain classes of goods to some point in the 
East. Where was that? 

Mr. Poland. Joint rate on flour and feed for export to Newport News and 
Norfolk, Ya. 

Senator Reed. Yes; and you also said you had had a controversy with the 
railroads before the Interstate Commerce Commission, and that the Interstate 
Commerce Commission had ruled that the railroads must receive your freight 
on the same terms that they received the freight of other railroads. 

Mr. Poland. Exactly. 

Senator Reed. Now, what advantage will that bring to the boat-line company? 

Mr. R. I). Sangster. Mr. Poland, may I, in order to get that question fully 
answered, ask Mr. Poland to make clear to the board here, now, just what 
this case was? 

Mr. Poland. I think I have done that. 

Mr. Sangster. Was that the case of the Kansas City Missouri River Navi¬ 
gation Co. against the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway Co.? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sangster. Decided May 11, 1915? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sangster. Found in the thirty-fourth volume of the Interstate Com¬ 
merce Commission’s reports at page 67? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Sangster. Now, what are the facts that caused you to go into the trial 
of that case—in detail? 

Mr. Poland. I explained that, I think, pretty thoroughly to the board a 
while ago; and it would be a repetition. 

Mr. Sangster, Oh; I was not here, I guess. 

Senator Reed. l T es; I did not mean to repeat it, but you explained to us 
that you had gone to the commission and had gained a decision in your favor. 

Mr. Poland. Yes. 

Senator Reed. And I wanted to know to what extent that would increase 
the profits of the boat-line company, and what advantage it would give the 
boat-line company in the making of rates to its customers? 

Mr. Poland. It is not so much an advantage to the boat line as it is to the 
customers of the boat line. It enables the shippers of the boat line to reach 
an additional Atlantic port. Up to that time- 

Senator Reed (interrupting). What is the differential? 

Mr. Poland. Two cents. 

Senator Reed. Does that mean a saving to each shipper of that class of 
goods of 2 cents per 100 pounds? 

Mr. Poland. The differential of that port by rail is 2 cents under the com¬ 
bination of rates on East St. Louis; but via the boat line the saving to the 
seaport is 1.8 cents; practically 2 cents. 

Senator Reed. That means that much on each 100 pounds? 

Mr. Poland. On each 100 pounds. 

Senator Reed. Now, is that small amount on each 100 pounds, does it run 
into large figures and is it sometimes a controlling factor in the matter of get¬ 
ting freight? 

Mr. Poland. I explained to you that Minneapolis had a 2-cent differential 
under Kansas City. This boat-line rate puts the Kansas City shipper within 
0.2 of 1 cent of the Minneapolis rate, which is practically the same rate- 

Senator Reed. Is that an important factor now? 

Mr. Poland. Very important. 

Col. Abbot. You mean this decision now puts Kansas City within 0.2 of 1 
cent of Minneapolis competition? 

Mr. Poland. Enables the Kansas City shipper, shipping via the boat line 
and for export through Newport News and Norfolk, to practically meet the 
Minneapolis competition on their through water rate via the Great Lakes. 

Col. Newcomer. The ocean rate from Norfolk is higher than New York, 
isn’t it? 

Mr. Poland. Yes, sir. 

Col. Newcomer. Doesn’t that again lose you the advantage? 

Mr. Poland. No ; it does not for this reason: Newport News and Norfolk 
have no lake-and-rail rates, but there were all-rail rates in there, and the 
all-rail rate from Kansas City through Newport News and Norfolk was 22 




230 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


cents. The Minneapolis rate was 20 cents. Our shippers were 2 cents higher 
on that particular port. Now, the rate is 20.2 cents, which practically meets 
the competition. 

Col. Newcomer. Well, I understood the Minneapolis rate to New York- 

Mr. Poland (interrupting). The same condition prevailed at New York. 
The accepted combination of rates at East St. Louis via lake and rail very 
closely meets the Minneapolis situation, but not to the other ports. 

Senator Reed. That is all I desire to ask. 

Mr. Sangster. Mr. Poland, did you make it clear to the board that the 
rates on grain and grain products from territory west of the Missouri River, 
going to the Mississippi River and beyond, make upon Kansas City combination? 

Mr. Poland. No; we had not said anything about that combination on 
Kansas City. 

Mr. Sangster. That question was put to you by the chairman or some of 
the other members of the board, as to how the rates made on that combination, 
and I do not think your answer made it clear enough so that they will under¬ 
stand it. Rut this is the rate-breaking point on eastbound grain and grain 
products from the Missouri River and territory west, the same as in the 
case of the class traffic moving west from territory east upon the Mississippi 
River combination. In other words, my point is this: That I would like to 
have you make clear to the board, if it is your understanding—assuming that 
you are familiar with the rate adjustment in this territory—that on all the 
rates upon grains on the Missouri River and beyond, moving between Kansas 
City and St. Louis upon which the boat line would make a rate of 80 per 
cent of the rail figure, that that same relative saving would apply upon all 
of the traffic consigned through Kansas Citj^ in connection With the boat line, 
in care of the railroad lines beyond St. Louis. 

Mr. Poland. Before you came in, I think, 1 stated to the board that that 
was the case: that this entire western territory could feed the boat line 
through Kansas City and save the boat-line differential. 

Chairman Black. That was done. We understand that. 

Congressman Borland. Very well, then, Mr. Poland, there is nothing more. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. I will say to the board that I promised to call Mr. 
Goltra now, and then Mr. Burkhart, of St. Louis. It is our desire to give 
every opportunity to all these gentlemen who have anything substantial to 
say on this subject. I will call, after that, Prof. Moulton, in order that we may 
have a full hearing upon behalf of all persons who are interested; but I am 
varying the order for the convenience of these gentlemen from out of town. 
Mr. Goltra. 

Edward F. Goltra, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. State your name, please, to the stenographer. 

Mr. Goltra. Edward F. Goltra. 

Congressman Borland. And you live in St. Louis? 

Mr. Goltra. Y T es, sir. 

Congressman Borland. What is your business, Mr. Goltra? 

Mr. Goltra. My business is iron. I am president of the Missouri Iron Co. 

Congressman Borland. I would like to have you explain, Mr. Goltra, as a 
business man of St. Louis first the attitude of the shipping public of St. Louis 
toward the maintenance of this improvement of the Missouri River, and, 
second, the plans, if any, now existing at St. Louis for creating there an 
industrial cehter that will have exceptional units for the waterway transpor¬ 
tation to the interior of this country. First, I would like to have you express, 
if you can, the feeling of the business men of St. Louis toward this project. 

Mr. Goltra. The business men of St. Louis are deeply interested in the 
consummation of the plan to rehabilitate the barge business on the Missouri 
River. We realize fully that we can get no lower rates by rail transportation 
than we obtain now. We need lower rates, and therefore we are compelled to 
look to this river-improvement plan in order to obtain them. We realize that 
with the carriers one after another going into the hands of the court as a re¬ 
sult of the rates which now obtain that we can not expect, at least for some 
time to come—that is, until the tonnage has increased in a great proportion to 
what it is now—any lower rates by rail transportation. 

Congressman Borland. That is to say, that the Interstate Commerce Com¬ 
mission would not arbitrarily fix some lower rate in the absence of some active 



MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 231 


competition by river? It would not force the railroads, if river transportation 
is eliminated, to lower their rates? 

Mr. Goltra. Probably I had better answer that question, Mr. Borland, by 
stating this homily: The man that fools himself is the worst-fooled fellow 
after all. 

Each month there goes in to the Interstate Commerce Commission a state¬ 
ment of each one of the railroads doing business. We now know exactly what 
they take in over their counters and what they pay out over their counters, and 
we know that the cost to them to produce this thing that we call rail transporta¬ 
tion is a figure which, considering the amount they have coming in to them by 
reason of the rates which now obtain, that the difference between the two wiil 
not permit, until there is a great increase in traffic, lower rates by rail trans¬ 
portation. There is no need of our fooling ourselves, gentlemen, on that 
proposition at all. That is just as clear as can be. So we see, and we think 
we see clearly, that in order to get lower rates we have got to go to river 
transportation. That is the reason why the business men of St. Louis are so 
deeply interested in the success and in the rehabilitation of barging facilities 
on the Missouri River. 

Mr. Sangster. May I interrupt you at this point? What you say amounts to 
this, that although the railroads have increased their rates, and their business 
is increasing, yet their operating expenses outrun what they earn; that is, the 
expense of operation is greater to-day in comparison with their gross earnings 
than ever before in the history of the railroads? 

Mr. Goltra. Yes; it costs more for labor, more for material; and the require¬ 
ments for safety appliances have increased; so that it costs more to operate 
than it has heretofore. 

Mr. Sangster. Is it not true that the railroads are unable to introduce such 
economies in the handling of traffic as to hold out any possibility of a lower 
rate level in this territory? 

Mr. Goltra. That is a patent fact and apparent to any man who will take 
the trouble to make an honest investigation. 

Mr. Sangster. Mr. Goltra. are you familiar with the increase of density of 
freight traffic in this western trunk-line territory in recent years? 

Mr. Goltra. I am not sufficiently versed in it to speak dogmatically. I 
know in a general way as to the amount of tonnage that moves through the 
Mississippi River gateway, so to speak. I suppose you are familiar with it. 
It is about 11,000 000 tons. 

Mr. Sangster. It is stated in our brief that it is 11,000,000 tons; but do you 
know what it was in 1906 for the same railroads? 

Mr. Goltra. I can not state exactly as to what the figure was in 1906. I 
have not here your brief, and therefore my information does not come from that 
source, but from other sources. 

Mr. Sangster. Do you know what the relation of the tonnage handled in 
1906 by these carriers was to the tonnage handled in 1914? 

Mr. Goltra. No ; I do not know that proportion of relation. 

Chairman Black. May I suggest that the time is getting short, and we had 
better let the witness cover that? 

Congressman Borland. Yes; Mr. Sangster is going on the stand. 

Now, Mr. Goltra, please give us an outline of the industrial situation in St. 
Louis, as to how the industries stand on this river question. 

Mr. Goltra. May I proceed along my own line? 

Congressman Borland. Y T es; take your own way of doing it. 

Mr. Goltra. As I understand it, the question as to whether the physical 
can be produced ha,s already been settled; that is, physical in the sense of a 
6-foot channel between Kansas City and St. Louis—that is not up for dis¬ 
cussion. I understand also that the amount of cost to materialize that physi¬ 
cal has also been settled approximately for us; so that it is not a matter of 
discussion. Consequently we come to the report of Col. Deakyne, and after 
having read that report carefully it seems to me that the only question that is 
before us is that which is contained in section 14 of this report. I see nothing 
else to this immediate hearing, no other occasion for its having been called, 
other than to take up that section 14 and either successfully combat it or admit 
that we can not. 

In that section, not to use his words but to use mine, he states that the whole 
question resolves itself into whetherUhe tonnage does exist; and if the tonuage 
does exist, whether there is sufficient to warrant this proposed outlay. 


232 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

Reading down further in the section you will find that he makes his whole 
conclusion and bases his whole report on what obtains in the strip of river 
between St. Louis and Cairo, where for the last three years we have had 6 
feet of channel constantly and sometimes more. He shows that some 260,000 
tons of freight is the total amount that has been moved on that strip of the 
river. He states that in order to warrant the Government making this ex¬ 
penditure that that amount would have to be increased one hundred fold. 
Now, the officer. I think, is mistaken. If it were to cost twenty millions to 
materialize a 6-foot channel between Kansas City and St. Louis, and if it were 
to take a Government issue in order to raise The money, that Government issue 
would readily be taken on the basis of the rate at which we put out our 
currency, which would be 2 per cent. That would mean a cost in the neighbor¬ 
hood of $400,000 overhead on account of the money that had been expended. 
He said that to maintain the channel it would take—I think he said $500,000. 
Is that correct, Mr. Borland? 

Congressman Borland. $500,000 for maintenance and $600,000 for interest 
on the whole amount. 

Mr. Goltra. So that would mean that the actual cost to the Government 
would be in the neighborhood of $900,000 to $1,000,000. 

Now, let us say the barge line is now receiving something like $11 a ton on 
textile fabric commodities between St. Louis and Kansas City and the rate 
on the very lowest commodity, pig iron, is $2.05. They are making a rate of 
80 per cent of the rail rate, so that the actual saving is in the neighborhood 
of 82 cents per ton of freight moved to the shipper throughout the valley— 
82 cents a ton. If only 1,000,000 tons were to be moved on this proposed 
waterway, it would nearly pay what this gentleman admits himself would 
be the cost; and in view of the fact that we have passing through the gateway 
at least approximately 11,000,000 tons of the lower grade of freight, which 
would be applicable especially to river transportation, which is generally esti¬ 
mated at about 20 per cent, plainly there is in sight the tonnage necessary, 
on his own figures, to warrant the expense. 

Now, then, speaking of the iron and steel industry and the allied industry, 
which is coke and fuel, in St. Louis we are now about to incorporate a concern 
for the purpose of putting Missouri on the pig-iron map again, so to speak. 

Kansas City and the Kansas City zone or territory, which would include 
Topeka, St. Joseph, Omaha, Atchison, and the other somewhat similar towns, 
are smelting now in the neighborhood of 1,000 tons of pig iron a day, and that 
pig iron is moved from Birmingham, Ala., at a freight rate of $4.75 or $5.75— 
it is $3.40 from Birmingham to St. Louis, and the rate is $2.05 by rail from 
St. Louis here, so I imagine it would come up through Memphis at a little 
less, but St. Louis, owing to a change, which Col. Deakyne was probably not 
aware of, now becomes a point where iron can be smelted at the same cost 
that obtains at Birmingham, Ala. To some of you gentlemen that statement 
will possibly be a little bit startling, but it is a fact, and we now are going 
to erect at Carondolet, on the river bank, a modern blast furnace and will 
have this market up here to supply. We want a better rate than $2.05 a ton, 
and the people here should have a better rate than $2.05 a ton on the 500 
tons of pig iron a day which comes up into this territory. With that pig 
iron will also flow the fuel necessary to smelt the iron, which will approximate 
about 400 tons a day. Col. Deakyne, I am sure, did not realize that the 
materialization of that 6-foot waterway was the “ impelling cause,” as you 
lawyers say, for the establishment of one of the largest by-products, coking 
coal plants, in the country at South St. Louis. That has lately, Colonel, been 
put in by the Laclede Gas Co., and they are producing metallurgical coke in 
St. Louis to-day, so that they are offering it to our proposed, and not only 
proposed, but an industry which is about to be announced—coke, metallurgical 
coke—at a rate such that St. Louis will be able to produce pig iron at a less 
cost than it is possible to produce it in Chicago or Pittsburgh or Cleveland. 

Judge Bland. You are a practical iron man, Mr. Goltra; that is your 
business? 

Mr. Goltra. Yes; that is my business, and I understand it, I think, from the 
ground up. 

Col. Flagler. Where does the ore come from? 

Mr. Goltra. The ore we are proposing to use will come, in its inception, from 
Waukon, Allamakee County, Iowa, about 13 miles back from the river. We 
have put in a branch road up into the mine, and it has been opened up. This 
is not a dream, this is an actual reality. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM K41SSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 233 


Now, gentlemen, confining my remarks to this section 14, it seems to me 
. 1 is all there is in this matter here, because we know that if the channel 

is materialized that we can transport in bulk freight very much cheaper than 
it is possible to transport it by rail. 

. Confining my remarks to section 14 in Col. Deakyne’s report, you must take 
into consideration this: Upon the Mesaba Range on the northwest coast of 
Rake Supenor the Steel Corporation has about 1,300,000,000 tons of ore. 
ihe Croat Northern Ore Association has about 300,000,000 tons of ore. That 
seems at first blush as almost inexhaustible, but when I tell you that they 
are taking from those deposits there about 78,000,000 tons each year, and it now 
is becoming necessary to put in concentrating plants so as to refine the ore, 
^ou will begin to understand what the possibilities are as to future tonnage 
for the Missouri River, especially when I tell you, also, that at the Sunrise 
deposit in YV yoming and in Colorado the time is not so far distant when they 
will be railing the ore from that section down to Omaha and bringing it down 
by this Missouri River into market. 

Kansas City, in order to have a 6-foot positive and permanent channel, 
Col. Black, with all of this territory to the west, southwest, and immediate 
northwest, in my opinion, could well afford to undertake the materialization 
of this improvement of the river itself. But it would be almost impossible to 
get Kansas City and the territory out through here to underwrite a $20,000,000 
issue for a materialization of that sort. The difficulty which Illinois has 
had in getting the entire State to take on a $5,000,000 issue is known to you 
all. Therefore there is but one thing to do, and that is to look to the Govern¬ 
ment. 


And in conclusion, I want to say this, gentlemen: I consider this the most 
important meeting that is being held in the United States to-day. If you should 
decide to adopt Col. Deakyne’s report, it will have, sir, a very, very serious 
effect on all internal waterway improvement projects and plans; it will be 
overwhelmingly discouraging. While, on the other hand, if, after you have 
heard the evidence, you decide that Col. Deakyne was not right in his con¬ 
clusion, there is no one in this room that can tell what and how great will 
be the beneficial effects of your decision. If you are in doubt, as a citizen I 
say to you that as a business proposition pure and simple, an economic propo¬ 
sition, you should decide to recommend to the Congress that this plan be 
supported. It would be far better for the Government to have lost this 13, 
15, or 18 million dollars, in my opinion, if it is to be lost and if the scheme 
is not feasible, than not to have tried it at all. 

Have you any more questions, Mr. Borland? 

Congressman Borland. No, sir; I think you have covered it thoroughly. 

Mr. Sangster. The rate on pig iron from Birmingham to Kansas City is 
$4.96 per ton of 2,240 pounds as per M. P. Washburn’s tariff, I. C. C. 107? 

Mr. Goltra. I would like at this point to make a suggestion, which may be 
worth while, which has just come to me, Col. Black. It may give you a better 
mental grasp of this thing as we see it out here, and therefore I will state it. 
The river belongs to the Government. If Uncle Sam will not improve this 
river—and I would be one of the first and the last to object to his doing what 
I am talking about now—what I propose to state to you. If Uncle Sam will 
not do this, if he would turn over this Missouri River to the men of Kansas 
City and the men of St. Louis and say to them, “ You can have that river 
and the exclusive right for transportation on that river for a period of 99 
years,” I will undertake to say that within 30 days there could be formed 
a body politic by the business men of St. Louis and Kansas City that would 
underwrite the entire proposition, and at the end of that period, Col. Black, of 
99 years, the surplus earnings of that corporation would be simply enormous, 
in my opinion. 

(Witness excused.) 


Harry Burkhart, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. Kindly state to the stenographers your name in full 
and your residence and occupation. 

Mr. Burkhart. Harry Burkhart; the Standard Saiitary Manufacturing Co. 
of Pittsburgh. 

Congressman Borland. You manufacture bathtubs and kindred products? 

Mr. Burkhart. l r es, sir; enamel ware. 

Congressman Borland. And you are located in St. Louis? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes. 


234 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Congressman Borland. And you are a shipper by river, over the line of the 
Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co.? 

Mr. Burkhart. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. Now, Mr. Burkhart, will you please go ahead and 
state your story briefly to the board. 

Mr. Burkhart. I am going to take up but a few minutes of your time, to 
show what has been done in the transportation of one commodity, that is, 
plumbers’ enamel ware, such as bathtubs and sinks and lavatories. Our main 
plant is at Pittsburgh, with a subsidiary plant at Louisville. About 90 per 
cent of our product that goes from Pittsburgh to the West, St. Louis, Kansas 
City, and to the foothills of the Rockies, is manufactured in Louisville. 

We had what we thought was a high-freight rate, and I came in contact with 
or heard of this Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. and it was about 
in June of this year that I thought I would try it out, and to make a long story 
short, since that time we have given them 40 cars which have been exclusively 
shipments into Kansas City. The freight rate by the boat has been a saving 
of from $12 to $15 and as high as $18 a car from Louisville through to 
Kansas City. And we have not been selfish in that. The Kansas City mer¬ 
chants, the Kansas City jobbers, through their clients, have reaped every 
dollar of benefit from the fact that we have allowed them the full-rail rate, 
and I think it will bring the matter more to a head when I tell you that in the 
matter of a carload of plumbers’ enamel ware, that $12 or $15 or $18 a car, 
according to the class of commodity, the class of material, represents all 
the way from one-fifth to one-twelfth of the absolute profit on a car, and I do 
not think that I need bear further on that when I state that this amount of 
money, handling the freight in carload lots, represents, according to the class 
of commodity, from one-fifth to one-twelfth of a carload profit handled by the 
jobber in distributing it. We have got to take that into consideration. 

From Kansas City to the foothills of the Rockies, and the other shipping 
centers, we distribute from 200 to 250 carloads a year, and that is an enormous 
saving, and it is almost like a cry from the wilderness to come from Pittsburgh 
and St. Louis here to Kansas City and put before you what it means in the 
distribution of material from the East into the West. 

If interstate-commerce connections can be made with through-traffic lines, 
in connection with this boat line, from Louisville to Cairo and from Cairo to 
St. Louis, the saving will not be $12, but will go to $23 or $27 on a carload of 
material. And I might state right here that we have up with this boat-line 
company at the present time a project—and not wishing them any bad luck, 
but we hope they will have to go to Paducah this winter to repair their boats, 
because if they do they have promised to run as far as Louisville and take on 
three full barge loads and bill them all the way through and distribute at St. 
Louis and intermediate points and into Kansas City. 

I believe it was stated that 30,000 tons was the amount carried this year by 
the boat-line company? 

Congressman Borland. Yes; about 30,000 tons. 

Mr. Burkhart. In round numbers we have given them 40 carloads since last 
.Tune, and I can guarantee them one-third of their carrying capacity of this 
year if we could be assured of regular running time. Our commodity is, like 
all others, one that can be ordered a week or so ahead of time of use, and if 
interchange can be made between railroads and their boat line, the whole 
West is open to us to the foothills of the Rockies; whereas, at the present 
time, our products shipped to the coast, go by way of the Atlantic Ocean. 

Now, I am not talking about this saving in freight from a selfish point of 
view, because we have never considered that as a matter of our own up to the 
present time. I mean by that, gentlemen, the saving of $15 on a car, and we 
have billed through, allowing the full-rail rate on our shipments, giving the 
jobber an advantage of $12 or $15 or $18 a car on the freight shipped from 
Louisville to East St. Louis and via the navigation company to Kansas City. 

And we sincerely hope that this board will take thoroughly into considera¬ 
tion the matter, and I fell that if other shippers will come here and explain to 
you the growth of what they could give this boat-line company upon the 
assurance of this board and of the Government that they will give us a 
stage of water that we can rely upon, shipments will increase 100 fold. The 
tonnage is there, more than the river can carry, much more than this one 
boat line can carry. 

I have heard it remarked and whispered around that this was all in the 
interest of this Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co. Gentlemen, if that 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 235 


river has a 6-foot channel from St. Louis to Kansas City, this one boat line 
can never do it all; there will he lots of competition, and I speak only from 
the standpoint of one shipper when I say that I can route over that line alone 
one-third of their entire commerce for this year. 

I went down from Kansas City to St. Louis on the boat, and I think at a 
time when the river was at rather full stage. We left Saturday at 1 o’clock 
and landed in St. Louis at quarter after 5 Monday evening, running daylight 
only. It was a matter of actual running time of about 31 hours, and from 
that should be deducted about 1 hour on a sandbar and about 2 hours for 
oiling, making the actual running time, if you could go right straight through, 
about 27 hours. 

I have another instance which I would like to bring before you and I can 
mention the name of the firm; it was the Kansas City Pump Co. In shipping 
via the Kansas City Missouri River Navigation Co., we must transfer our 
freight at St. Louis from the car to the barge, and at Kansas City from the 
barge to the car. In loose shipments, such as sinks, we stack them in straw and 
we block off a part of the car. and the balance of the car is loaded with crated 
material; and that class of freight can not be transferred from the car into 
a barge. 

The Kansas City Pump Co. had in an order for all crated material and an 
order for a carload of mixed material out of Louisville on the same day, and 
they had one car shipped by the boat line and one car all rail, and I wish to 
state that the car shipped over the line of the navigation company was put into 
the switch of the Kansas City Pump Co. in the neighborhood of 27 hours quicker 
than the all-rail shipment. 

I do not think with the river—with the channel of the river navigable so as 
to permit these men to run their boats day and night, that there would be any 
difference whatsoever that would weigh upon it, as far as time was concerned, 
in shipments between Kansas City and St. Louis or any other point where the 
running would be straight ahead. 

Going down on that trip we left here Saturday at 1 o’clock and we laid up 
at about 8 o’clock,-and we started away Sunday morning about half past 5 or 
a quarter of 6, and we laid up at Jefferson City at about half past 7 and we 
- left Jefferson City and the boat was in St. Louis, docked, at, I guess it was, 
about 6 o’clock Monday night. 

Now, gentlemen, that was on a stage of the river which these people are 
asking you to appropriate the money to create, and I am sincerely in the hope 
that every shipper, every man that puts a product from the East to the West, 
that goes beyond St. Louis to Kansas City, or if it has to pass through 
Kansas City, I hope he will take this grand opportunity of coming before you 
gentlemen and telling just what it means to this section of the country and 
what it means to his trade. I thank you. 

Congressman Borland. We are very much obliged to you, Mr. Burkhart. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Anderson, I understand that you can not be here 
to-morrow? 

Mr. Anderson. No; I leave to-morrow morning. 

Congressman Borland. Then you may take the stand now. 

j. w. Anderson, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. I expected to take up to-morrow the Kansas City 
shippers, but as you say you can not be here, Mr. Anderson, please state your 
full name to the stenographers. 

Mr. Anderson. J. W. Anderson. 

Congressman Borland. You are manager of the Kansas City Kornfalfa Feed 

Milling Co.? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. You deal in alfalfa meal products? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And your market for those alfalfa meal products is 

South and East? 

Mr. Anderson. l T es, sir. 

Congressman Borland. You bring in your alfalfa from the West and you mill 
it here and then your products go South and East? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Is that the idea? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 


236 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Congressman Borland. So your shipments would be out-bound shipments 
from Kansas City over the Missouri River, if you used the river? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. Please explain to the board what you explained to me 
about the rates on your product being based on Cairo instead of St. Louis and 
the necessity of a readjustment of the rates; just explain to the board the 
volume of business of that kind at Kansas City and the effect of the rates. 

Mr. Anderson. Eighty per cent of the all-rail rate from here to St. Louis 
gives a rate of 6.4, or a saving of 1.6 per hundred, equaling 32 cents a ton, or 
$6.40 on a 20-ton car. We now enjoy that saving, which is used for our own 
benefit or for that of our customers. We give it to him in the matter of getting 
business. We enjoy that saving on eastbound business, but we do not enjoy it 
on southeastern business. The all-rail rates are made up by a combination with 
lines of carriers which takes away almost 1 cent of the 1.6 cents saving we 
make from Kansas City to St. Louis. In other words, on a shipment to Bir¬ 
mingham, which would take a rate of 31 cents all-rail, we are only able to make 
a rate of 30.4 cents by Missouri River and rail from Kansas City to Birmingham. 

If the railroads in the Southeast would accept freight from the Kansas City 
Missouri River Navigation Co. on the same pro rata basis that they do from 
the railroads running from Kansas City to St. Louis, we would then enjoy the 
full saving in the rate from Kansas City to St. Louis, which is 1.6 cents. 

Now, the business we have given the Kansas City Missouri River Transporta¬ 
tion Co., the navigation company, this year, has totaled about 1,840 tons—92 
car loads—that represents the tonnage that we have given the navigation com¬ 
pany as applying to our eastern business, and our eastern business is not more 
than 30 per cent of our entire business, so that we have not had the opportunity 
of favoring the boat line with as large a percentage of our entire tonnage as we 
would like to. If we were able to use the river for shipments to southeastern 
territory we could give the boat line, conservatively speaking, 80 per cent of 
our tonnage. Our tonnage last year was nearly 28,000 tons, and we are looking 
for a 10 per cent increase in our gross tonnage this year. That would equal a 
tonnage of 20.000 tons that we could give the boat line in the ensuing year. 

We are extremely anxious to see the boat line succeed and the improve¬ 
ments carried out. 

To show you the effect it has in getting business, we made a slight mistake in 
soliciting business in the Southeast, figuring that the figure we make up to St. 
Louis would apply on southeastern business, the same as on eastern business, 
and we immediately had responses from a great many of our customers in the 
Southeast because of that saving we expected we could give to them as an 
inducement to get their business; and on the business we accepted on that 
quotation we sold at a slight loss. I mention that fact to show you that our 
trade in the Southeast will bring more business to me if I can give them the 
saving that the river transportation will bring to me. Now, that only applies 
on the saving up to St. Louis. If you will extend that river transportation to 
Louisville, Memphis, Pittsburgh, and New Orleans, the saving grows as the 
water transportation is extended. 

Eighty per cent of the 19-cent rail rate to New Orleans means a saving of 
3.8 cents per hundred or 7.6 cents a ton, and 7.6 per ton is a larger profit than 
I made last year of the total tonnage going through our mills. Our business 
is a tonnage business strictly. The profits are small per ton, and you must 
swing a large tonnage in order to make the industry a success. I do not think 
there is another single industry where 20 per cent of the rate to a point like 
New Orleans would probably cover 100 per cent of the profit of the business. 

It is of great importance to my industry for that very reason. We look 
upon the boat line as a kind of savior in equalizing some of the benefits the 
other markets have which we do not enjoy here. St. Louis and Chicago have 
benefits by reason of water transportation that we have not enjoyed, and 
when river transportation comes on the Missouri River we will welcome it, be¬ 
cause it means it will help us get business and help us run our business and 
make it more profitable. I think it is safe to say we can give the Kansas City 
Missouri River Navigation Co. 20,000 tons a year, and I mention that fact 
because tonnage seems to be important in determining whether the expenditure 
on the part of the Government would be wise. 

I am only a small industry in this large feed business. We feed animals, 
and the business runs in large ton figures. 

Congressman Borland. Where do you get your alfalfa from? 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 237 


Mr. Anderson. We draw it from Kansas, Colorado, Nebraska, and Wyoming. 
At the present time I am also president and manager of tlie Basin Alfalfa 
Milling Co., which this year has operated three mills in the Big Horn Basin, 
in Wyoming, and river transportation will figure materially in the profit we 
get from those mills. 

Congressman Borland. How much, or how large, is the milling industry in 
alfalfa in this vicinity? You are only one mill here, are you not? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes, I do not like to enlarge these figures too much, because 
the board will think we are all boosters, but I think I am safe in saying that 
there is a tonnage of at least 100,000 tons of alfalfa meal alone, and that is 
only one ingredient in our product. We are manufacturers of meal of which 
alfalfa represents 30 per cent, but there is a tonnage of alfalfa meal alone, 
which is the first prime product of alfalfa ground into meal throughout the 
West and which comes into the central markets, where the meal is mixed 
with other feeding meal, so the alfalfa-meal tonnage is approximately 100,000 
tons. Kansas City does not by any means represent the total tonnage of the 
alfalfa-meal business, but is only a starter. 

Col. Newcomer. Do you say that river transportation would figure in bring¬ 
ing that tonnage to Kansas City from the western territory? 

Mr. Anderson. This tonnage coming from the West does not stop at Kansas 
City, and any saving we can make by water transportation enhances the chance 
of marketing. We market our product from Portland, Me., to Miami, Fla., 
and back again to San Antonio, Tex. 

Col. Newcomer. Who gets that product? 

Mr. Anderson. The Boston team owner and the Georgia mule owner. 

Senator Reed. If this boat line was wiped out of existence, what would be 
the effect on your business? 

Mr. Anderson. Well, it would materially affect our business in this respect: 
On the 1,840 tons which we have given the boat line this year we have effected 
a saving of 32 cents a ton, or probably one-third of a dollar per ton. 

Senator Reed. That is all. 

(Witness excused.) 

Chester Newman, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. State your name to the record. 

Mr. Newman. Chester Newman. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Newman, you are the manager of the National 
Aniline & Chemical Co.? 

Mr. Newman. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. Explain to the board the effect of the boat line on 
your business. 

Mr. Newman. Our tonnage is of such a nature that we can only give a part 
of it to the boat line at any time. At the present time it only runs about 50 
tons per month by the river, but with the better service which this improvement 
which is projected will give, I should say that, conservatively, it ought to be 
250 tons a month. 

There are four other concerns in this line of business in the city, and I 
should say that the total would multiply that tonnage possibly by 3, which 
would bring it up to 750 tons a month. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Newman, we are entitled to assume that if this 
project is approved and carried out, that there will be established here a per¬ 
manent 6-foot channel in the river, which will enable the boats to have daily 
sailings from Kansas City to St. Louis and back, and that the running time 
should be 72 hours upstream from St. Louis to Kansas City and 27 hours 
downstream. Now, under those circumstances, how much of your tonnage 
could you give to a boat line operating in that manner on an improved and 
perfected channel under the conditions I have described? 

Mr. Newman. I should say that the tonnage we could give them would -run, 
conservatively, 250 tons a month. 

Congressman Borland. What is the class of your tonnage? 

Mr. Newman. It varies from first class down to quite low. The average 
rate per ton, I should say, would be about $3.50. 

Congressman Borland. You are a manufacturer? 

Mr. Newman. Practically all of this is a jobbing line. 

Congressman Borland. That is all. 

(Witness excused.) 


238 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Judge Bland. If tlie board please a moment, in introducing these witnesses 
as to the tonnage we are not taking the aggregate tonnage of Kansas City, 
but are selecting different men, this in the chemical line, another feed, another 
harness, another drugs, another groceries, etc., extending over the whole 
class of business in this territory, and not exhausting each class, but just tak¬ 
ing time enough to give the committee an estimate of the general extent to 
which boat-line traffic may be extended, by selecting the different lines of 
business. I merely mention that because we have had an alfalfa man and a 
chemical man, and they are representative in their lines of business in Kansas 
City. 

The following letter was submitted to the board: 

“ Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co., 

“October 19, 1915. 

“The Board of Army Engineers, in session at Kansas City, considering report 

about improvements on the Missouri River betiveen Kansas City and St. 

Louis. 

“ Gentlemen : In connection with this hearing, the undersigned company 
operates a large establishment in Kansas City for the manufacture of crackers, 
biscuits, candy, and similar food products. 

“ Our company has an annual volume of sales at this point of approximately 
$4,500,000. An investigation of our traffic records shows that for the 12 months 
preceding October 1, 1915, we shipped into Kansas City from eastern points 
freight equal to 3,993 tons, a large portion of which was from such origin and 
of such class that it could have moved via St. Louis and been transported by 
the boat line from St. Louis to Kansas City. 

“ We have estimated that if there is a regular schedule of sailings from St. 
Louis to Kansas City on an improved channel which would insure shippers 
efficient service and prompt delivery, we could increase our tonnage to the 
boat line some 2,500 or 3,000 tons more than we have shipped during the past 
year. This company also maintains a large factory at Omaha, Nebr.. a 
considerable portion of whose supplies could be brought from St. Louis to 
Kansas City by boat, and reshipped from here. It is estimated that we could 
give the boat line about 500 tons of freight for the Omaha factory. 

“ The approximate tonnage above referred to may be greatly increased if 
through boat-line connections are established from New Orleans to Kansas 
City, as this would enable us to move our heavy shipments of sugar and 
molasses which originate on the lower Mississippi River points. 

“ Respectfully submitted. 

“ Loose-Wiles Biscuit Co., 

“ John H. Wiles, Vice President.” 

Chairman Black. The hearing will now be adjourned until 9 o’clock to¬ 
morrow morning. 

(Thereupon, at 10.10 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until 9 o’clock 
Wednesday morning, October 20, 1915.) 

Assembly Room, Commercial Club, 

Kansas City, Mo., 

Wednesday, October 20, 1915—9 o'clock a. m. 

Present: As before. 

Chairman Black. The hearing will please come to order. 

Gentlemen, it is essential that we close this hearing this afternoon, and I 
would ask you to be as brief as you can in stating the facts. I think those of 
you who were here yesterday heard some testimony that impressed you. You 
heard other testimony that did not impress you at all, because* the few 
grains of wheat that were in it were almost buried and lost in the mass of 
chaff. Now, what impressed you also impressed the board in the same way, 
and I would ask that the statements be brief and to the point. 

Congressman Borland. May it please the board, we are going to put on this 
morning the secretary of the Commercial Club of Omaha and a shipper of 
Omaha, and I am going to ask Hon. John L. Kennedy, former Member of Con¬ 
gress, of Omaha, to conduct the examination, as he understands the require¬ 
ments of that section and will be brief and direct. 

Mr. Kennedy, will you conduct the examination of those two witnesses? 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 239 


Robert H. Manley, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Mr. Kennedy. You are commissioner of the Commercial Club of Omaha? 

Mr. Manley. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. How large an organization is that, Mr. Manley? 

Mr. Manley. It lias more than 1,700; it is composed of more than 1,700 
business men of Omaha. 

Mr. Kennedy. What lias been your duty, in a general way, as such com¬ 
missioner? 

Mr. Manley. The general management of the club affairs and the conduct 
of the work of the club in furthering improvements which are done for the 
benefit of Omaha. * 

Mr. Kennedy. Has the Commercial Club of Omaha maintained a Missouri 
River Navigation Committee? 

Mr. Manley. Yes, sir; since the first of the year. 

Mr. Kennedy. For what purpose? 

Mr. Manley. For the purpose of bringing about river transportation, both 
up and down the river, inasmuch as the shippers, the wholesalers and manu¬ 
facturers of Omaha, realize that we must have water transportation soon in 
order that they may—in order that their interests may be properly taken care 
of, and that the river may be put in such shape that it will better serve their 
interests and give them cheaper rates, give them the advantage of lower rates 
of freight. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you any knowledge of the establishing of boat trans¬ 
portation on the river near Omaha? 

Mr. Manley. Yes, sir; we have established since the 1st of July—about the 
1st of July we put on a small power boat and barge to ply between Omaha 
and Decatur, which is about 90 miles up the river from Omaha and which 
serves quite a large agricultural territory. We bought a barge to put upon 
the river in order to serve that territory and bring grain down to the grain 
market at Omaha and, on the other hand, for the purpose of shipping up the 
river from the wholesalers at Omaha the supplies needed for that territory. 

Mr. Kennedy. When did you first put on the boat? When did the first 
boat go on? 

Mr. Manley. About the 1st of July, 1915. 

Mr. Kennedy. And has one been added since? 

Mr. Manley. Yes; the business was so good that we were unable to take 
care of the grain coming down the river from Decatur, and were not able to 
take care of more than 15 per cent of it. For that reason the business men of 
Decatur bought the first boat that was brought up there, and that gave the 
capital for a second power boat, which will carry 50 tons on its deck. The 
barges are 150 tons capacity. And that better enables us to move that grain 
coming down from Decatur to Omaha. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the distance between Decatur and Omaha? 

Mr. Manley. About 90 miles. 

Mr. Kennedy. What has been the character of the cargoes carried? 

Mr. Manley. Upstream it has been supplies for that part of the State, from 
the jobbers, and downstream it has been almost entirely sacked grain. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, what steps, if any, did the Commercial Club of Omaha 
take to provide wharfage for this business? 

Mr. Manley. In order to provide wharfage the city of Omaha, out of its 
own treasury, gave the sum of $750 for a temporary warehouse on the river 
front, on city property, to take care of the loading and unloading of the grain 
coming downstream and the provisions and supplies going upstream. 

Mr. Kennedy. Has the warehouse been built? 

Mr. Manley. Yes; the warehouse has been built and is now in operation. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you any knowledge of an effort on the part of the 
Commercial Club of Omaha to establish a hay market in Omaha? 

Mr. Manley. Yes, sir; there is a very definite effort to do that. Hay in 
Nebraska is one of our largest crops. The Government report for 1914 shows 
about two and one-half million tons of hay in Nebraska. The value of that crop 
for 1914 was something over $17,000,000. The hay has been going through 
Omaha south, for the market is largely south on hay—south and east—but we 
have never had a hay market there, but we expect to establish one, and one of 
the chief aids to a hay market will be this river navigation, which we hope to 
develop between Omaha and Kansas City, in order that we may take care of 


240 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


the hay on barges on the downstream movement from the hay market which we 
are now on the point of organizing. 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you just explain to the board in a few' words what the 
establishment of that market will mean; that is, what is or what has to be done 
to establish it? 

Mr. Manley. Well, the hay market is to serve the same purpose in the mar¬ 
keting of hay that the Omaha live-stock market serves in the marketing of live 
stock and that the Omaha grain market has to do in serving the market with 
grain. It is necessary to permit the cars to stop in transit and go upon the mar¬ 
ket—to put the hay upon the Omaha market—and the first step requires that 
arrangements be made with the railroads in regard to rates. That is the most 
important step, that rates must be secured from the railroads in and out of 
Omaha before we can establish this hay market and allow cars to stop there. 

Mr. Kennedy. It means inspection, does it not? 

Mr. Manley. Yes; inspection at Omaha. 

Mr. Kennedy. And it also means grading the hay? 

Mr. Manley. Yes; inspection and grading. 

Mr. Kennedy. And fitting it for export and home consumption? 

Mr. Manley. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Is it not true also that Iowa is a large hay-producing State? 

Mr. Manley. l T es; Iowa is even larger than Nebraska as a hay-producing 
State. 

Mr. Kennedy. What is the attitude of the Commercial Club of Omaha and 
the people of Omaha with reference to the improvement of the Missouri River 
from St. Louis to Kansas City? 

Mr. Manley. The people themselves are very enthusiastic about it; they hope 
that it will be possible for us to navigate between Omaha and Kansas City. The 
shippers are particularly enthusiastic, because they feel that there is need of 
cheaper transportation between Omaha and Kansas City and from Omaha to 
St. Louis than they now have on railroads. 

Mr. Kennedy. And they hope in due time, when this waterway is completed 
to Kansas City, to also have it continued up the river to Omaha? 

Mr. Manley. l T es, indeed. 

(Witness excused.) 

J. S. White, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Mr. Kennedy. Will you give your name to the board? 

Mr. White. ,T. S. White. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. White, you live in Omaha? 

Mr. White. I do. 

Mr. Kennedy. With what company are you connected there? 

Mr. White. With the H. F. Cady Lumber Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. What office do you hold with that company? 

Mr. White. I am president of the H. F. Cady Lumber Co. 

Mr. Kennedy. Are you a member of the river-navigation committee of the 
Omaha Commercial Club? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And as such member of that committee you know r something 
of its purposes? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you been shipping lumber or building material on these 
boats to which Mr. Manley has referred ? 

Mr. White. Y^es; on every trip; we have made shipments on every trip the 
boat has made. 

Mr. Kennedy. What has been the character of the shipments? 

Mr. White. Lumber and cement and plaster, and all of the lumber that goes 
into the construction of houses, barns, sheds, cribs, etc. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you know anything of their intention to extend that trade 
and ship stock down to the Omaha market? 

Mr. White. I do; yes, sir. The day before I left the Lady Belle was at the 
foot of Douglas Street and the captain bought some 2 by 4’s himself to make 
barriers to keep the stock from going overboard which he was going to carry 
on their next trip. He said he had three cars of cattle coming down on the next 
trip. 

Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been engaged in the lumber business, Mr. 
White? 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 241 


Mr. White. Twenty-seven years. 

Mr. Kennedy. At Omaha? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you are, of course, familiar with the lumber market and 
the transportation problems attending the trade in that commodity? 

Mr. White. I am. 

Mr. Kennedy. What have you to say to the board, Mr. White, as to the 
importance of the Missouri River as an open waterway for the lumber traffic? 

Mr. White. Well, I can say that if it were not for the fact that some other 
markets might have an opportunity to ship at a lower price, that we could pos¬ 
sibly get along in the old way, although the new way would be much cheaper 
and better; but with the opening of navigation to St. Louis, and possibly to 
Kansas City, and anyway to Davenport, Iowa, we feel as if we would soon be 
taken off the boards, entirely off the map, because we know absolutely that it 
would be impossible for us to compete in a jobbing way with people that had to 
pay less for their material; they could ship over our heads and pay the freight 
across the State of Iowa and we could not help ourselves at all. 

Mr. Kennedy. Lumber is one commodity which could particularly well be 
handled on the river? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir; it is so everywhere else. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, what is true of your business at Omaha would be true 
of all other institutions of the same character? 

Mr. White. Unquestionably so; yes, sir. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what do you say now to this board as to whether or not 
the people engaged in your line of business could use the Missouri River to 
advantage if it were opened? 

Mr. White. We not only could and would, but we would have to use it if 
we stayed in business, everything outside of the paltry retail business that cuts 
no figure. 

Mr. Kennedy. You heard Mr. McVan testify yesterday that the rate on iron 
and steel from Pittsburgh to the Pacific coast was 55 cents? 

Mr. White. Yes; the railroads had made application for the rate. 

Mr. Kennedy.* Yes; that the railroads had made application for the rate? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you happen to know what the rate on those commodities 
now is from Pittsburgh to Omaha? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir; we buy every month, and it is 43.6 cents per hundred. 

Mr. Kennedy. What do you buy that comes under that classification? 

Mr. White. Barbed wire and nails. 

Mr. Kennedy. Do you happen to know what the rate is on the same com¬ 
modities from Omaha to the Pacific coast? 

Mr. White. 55 cents per hundred pounds. 

Mr. Kennedy. I think that is all. 

Chairman Black. Where does your lumber supply come from? ' 

Mr. White. From the south in yellow pine and from the coast in fir. 

Mr. Black. From the Pacific coast? 

Mr. White. Yes; from the Pacific coast. 

Mr. Black. How does it come to you from the Pacific coast, by rail? 

Mr. White. Yes; entirely by rail now. 

Mr. Black. Have you made any calculation about what would be the dif¬ 
ference if you were to bring it around by water? 

Mr. White. I have. Shortly after one of your members, Col. Deakyne, made 
a report, an unfavorable report, relative to the navigation of the Missouri 
River, I wrote him with reference to that. 

Mr. Kennedy. Have you that letter, Mr. White? 

Mr. White. I have a copy of it. 

Mr. Kennedy. I suggest that you submit it to the board as the shortest way 
to put the information requested before the board. 

Chairman Black. Do you there show what could be done with Pacific coast 
lumber on a water route? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Chairman Black. How would you bring it in, to New Orleans and then up? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Black. Do you remember anything about the figures at all? 

Mr. White. I have the letter in my pocket; it is short. 

Mr. Kennedy. Read the letter into the record, Mr. White. 

H. Doc. 463, 64-1-16 


242 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH 


Mr. White. I will do so; it is as follows: 


“ Lieut. Col. Herbert Deakyne, 

Corps of Engineers. 

“Dear Sir: I am a member of the Missouri River navigation committee 
of the Omaha Commercial Club, and I am very much interested in the navi¬ 
gation of the Missouri River between Kansas City and Omaha, because I feel 
that the future success and growth of my company will depend upon the 
navigation of the Missouri River to Omaha. 

“ Coincident with the use of the Panama Canal will come very much lower 
rate on fir lumber from Washington and Oregon mills to every point that can 
be reached by water in this district, notably St. Louis, Kansas City, Burlington, 
and Davenport, Iowa. 

“ Rough fir lumber weighs 3,300 pound per 1,000 feet, and surfaced fir weighs 
2,500 pounds per 1,000 feet, which, at a 50-cent rate, costs in freight alone 
$16.50 per 1,000 feet on rough, and $12.50 per 1,000 feet on surfaced lumber to 
transport by railroad to Omaha from Washington and Oregon points. 

“ The present rate on either rough or surfaced lumber from Washington and 
Oregon points to New York, Philadelphia, or Baltimore is $7.50 to $8 per 
1,000 feet, freight and canal charges, inclusive. No doubt the freight to 
St. Louis, Davenport, or Kansas City will be practically the same, with 50 
cents to $1 added for lighterage, etc. This would enable towns having water 
connection such as those named to out sell the Omaha lumber merchant. 

“ This is an alarming prospect for use to face in the sale of lumber at Omaha. 
We sell about as much lumber in Iowa as in Nebraska, and we are informed 
that Davenport is expending large sums on municipal dockage to care for an 
immense extension of her river business. We also handle nails and barbed 
wire that should come to Omaha via water route. 

“ We face a constant demand, and the most energetic efforts by all railroads 
to increase our present rates on everything, and are forced to employ the best 
of attorneys and traffic officials to maintain a small space on the map, and 
these same railroads have seemingly convinced our Interstate Commerce Com¬ 
mission that they not only do not get enough freight to make any money, but 
testify that an increase in their rates is necessary and must come if they 
expect to continue in business without going through the receiver’s hands, so 
we can not expect any lower reductions in freights at their hands, and it seems 
to the poor business man in Omaha as if river navigation from St. Louis and 
Kansas City held the only possible salvation of our mercantile prosperity as a 
lumber market. 

“ We receive at the present time about 200 cars of fir lumber, practically 
6,000 tons; 600 cars of yellow pine and cypress lumber from the south, about 
18,000 tons, and about 400 tons of barbed wire and nails, and we hope that 
vigorous action upon the part of the Government will be taken promptly to 
prevent a great loss to Omaha, a city that is so located geographically that it 
is destined as a gateway for an enormous tonnage, but for a reaction that 
transportation of any character given to Omaha’s neighbors and denied her 
would occasion. If the Missouri River is made navigable we will certainly 
take advantage of it in every possible way at all times, from the first minute it 
becomes available. 

“ I wish I could voice my extreme interest in this matter and bond my 
support for all time to this movement to save us from the enemy—our com¬ 
petitors. 

“ Yours, truly, 


“ H. F. Cady Lumber Co., 
“ Per J. S. White, Presidents 


Chairman Black. In advance of the improvement of the Missouri River 
between Kansas City and Omaha would it pay you to bring lumber from 
St. Louis to Kansas City by water and then ship 'it by rail to Omaha, or would 
it be cheaper to get it all rail from St. Louis? 

Mr. White. I do not know what rate would be made to Kansas City. I 
would suppose that once it were put on a boat it would be much cheaper to 
continue by the boat to Omaha and unload there. Our yard and many others 
are within a very short distance of where docks will no doubt be built in 
Omaha. 

Chairman Black. That was not the question I asked, hardly. In advance 
of the improvement of the river between Omaha and Kansas* City would it 
pay you to bring lumber up from St. Louis by water to Kansas City and then 
ship it by rail to Omaha rather than to bring it all rail direct to Omaha? 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 243 


Mr. White. I could only know in regard to that when I was quoted a rate 
by the water route; that has not been done yet. 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. White, about what date did you write that letter? It is 
not dated. 

Mr. White. The stenographer, in copying this for me, failed to put on the 
date, but I think it was about June 20 of this year. 

Mr. Kennedy. Now, one other question: As a member of the Missouri River 
navigation committee of the Commercial Club of Omaha you have been inter¬ 
ested and have knowledge of the efforts to establish a hay market at Omaha, 
have you not? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And you have made some investigation as to the amount of 
hay and alfalfa that might be handled from there on the river up and down? 

Mr. White. Yes. 

Mr. Kennedy. And what do you say to the board as to the importance of 
the navigation of the river, both between Omaha and Kansas City and between 
Kansas City and St. Louis from a hay-market standpoint? 

Mr. White. I should say that it would be very important, indeed. We had 
a mill in Louisiana a few years ago and we bought all of our hay from Kansas 
City, and that hay came from Nebraska, Iowa, and Kansas, and, as testified 
by Mr. Manley here a few minutes ago, the production of hay in Nebraska is 
very large, and in Iowa still larger; possibly Iowa may be the largest hay- 
producing State in the United States, and I do not think that Nebraska will 
come in a very bad second, and the amount is very large. 

Mr. Kennedy. And that is a class of freight that could be readily adapted 
to the boat traffic on the river? 

Mr. White. Yes, sir; very much so. 

Col. Newcomer. Is there any considerable movement of lumber into St. 
Louis by river? 

Mr. White. I have not advised myself on that for the past year or so, but 
I do know that a very large lumber jobber in the extreme north part of 
Omaha—I do not recall his name now—but he handles cypress lumber, and 
all of the output for some months of a large cypress mill at Plaquemine, La., 
on the Texas & Pacific Railroad. This mill is 6 miles from the Mississippi 
River, and the last time I was at that mill they were at that time delivering 
for this man on barges, two barges, and hauling it G miles overland by team 
instead of shipping it north by the Texas & Pacific Road, on which their 
mill is located. And I know that a great amount of yellow pine goes north 
to St. Louis. 

Col. Newcomer. By river? 

Mr. White. By river. 

Col. Newcomer. There is no very large tonnage to St. Louis by river, is 
there? They are not receiving any California fir yet, are they? 

Mr. White. I do not know, sir. I am not sure that the canal, has been 
open all the time; I have heard of slides and so forth. 

Col. Newcomer. The canal has been in service for a year. 

Mr. White. A man does not handle lumber and pay a 55-cent rate from the 
coast to St. Louis when he has an $8 rate that would take him 2.500 miles 
farther than New Orleans, or less than half of what it would be at the 55-cent 
rate. We could not do it. The freight is a large element in the lumber busi¬ 
ness ; we pay more freight than we do money to the man that makes it. 

Col. Newcomer. You seem to be apprehensive of the effect on your trade of * 
water competition at St. Louis. That water competition has existed for some 
time, has it not? 

Mr. White. The canal has not existed for some time. 

Col. Newcomer. The southern lumber market has been available to St. Louis 
for many years? 

Mr. White. Yes; but with the increased demand that would naturally be 
created for the fir lumber, which can come in at New Orleans at half the 
freight, it would stimulate river business until everyone would naturally take 
advantage of the lower rates offered them. 

Col. Newcomer. It would seem so. 

Mr. White. The mills have been built on railroads and they are established 
for a different line of traffic. 

Chairman Black. Although the canal has been open but a year, yet I know 
that preparation had been made along the Hudson at Poughkeepsie and other 
places to receive the lumber, and it is only within the last few months that 


244 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTn. 


shipments have been coining in. They are coming from the Pacific coast by 
water. 

Mr. Kennedy. It takes time to readjust business conditions. That is all, 
Mr. White. 

(Witness excused.) 

Charles F. Faeth, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Faeth, just state the nature of your concern. 

Mr. Faeth. The Faeth Iron Co. 

Congressman Borland. Just tell the board now to what extent you have 
used the transportation on the river during the last few seasons. 

Mr. Faeth. I had a statement prepared of our tonnage received by boat line. 

Congressman Borland. I have your statement here on page 112, or a clip¬ 
ping from it. 

Mr. Faeth. I am quoting from that. This is a statement prepared by our 
traffic department. We shipped into Kansas City during the season of 1914 
300,391 pounds via the boat line, and in 1915 we shipped into Kansas City 
3,378,301 pounds. 

Congressman Borland. That is an increase of tenfold between 1914 and 
1915? 

Mr. Faeth. Well, elevenfold; eleven times as much. 

Congressmen Borland. Now, Mr. Faeth, your material is heavy iron? 

Mr. Faeth. We deal principally in iron, steel, horseshoes, bolts, nuts, washers, 
and rivets. 

Congressman Borland. From what direction? 

Mr. Faeth. Practically from Chicago, Cleveland, or the Pittsburgh district. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Faeth, assuming that the Missouri River Channel 
is completed to a permanent 6-foot depth and that the boats run night and day, 
affording a 72-hour delivery out of St. Louis into Kansas City and daily sailings 
from St. Louis and Kansas City, how much, if any, could* you increase that 
tonnage? 

Mr. Faeth. We could give them annually three times that tonnage, at least. 

Congressman Borland. Three times that tonnage? 

Mr. Faeth. At least. 

Congressman Borland. It is a question, then, only of the equipment and 
improvement of the river? 

Mr. Faeth. That is all. 

Judge Bland. Would you be willing to give that tonnage, Mr. Faeth? 

Mr. Faeth. I would be more than willing, Judge. 

Congressman Borland. That is all; thank you. 

(Witness excused.) 

William Volker, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Judge Bland. Your firm is William Volker & Co.? 

Mr. Volker. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. You nre engaged in the manufacturing and wholesale busi¬ 
ness also? 

Mr. Volker. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. Are you one of the directors of the navigation company Mr. 
Volker? 

Mr. Volker. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. Have you been using the river, Mr. Volker, for shipments of 
your freight in the past? 

Mr. Volker. Yes; used it ever since the Richards Boat Line was established 
I think, in 1882. 

Judge Bland. And used it when the Lura and Tennessee and Chester 
were on? 

Mr. Volker. Yes. 

Judge Bland. Mr. Volker, what tonnage have you shipped over the boat line 
in recent years—that is, 1913, 1914, and 1915? 

Mr. Volker. We have shipped 240 tons a year over the boat line. 

Judge Bland. What is your total tonnage into Kansas City? 

Mr. Volker. Our total tonnage into Kansas City is 4,500 tons a year. 

Judge Bland. If we had daily sailings from St. Louis with regular schedule 
of, say, 72 hours upstream, what tonnage could you and would you be willing 
to give to the boat company? 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 245 

Mr. A olker. We would feel like promising 1,500 tons a year, but believe our 
offerings would exceed 2,000 tons a year. 

Judge Bland. Mr. \ olker, you were born in Germany? 

Mr. Volker. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. You are familiar with the situation of the watercourses in 
Germany ? 

Mr. Volker. In a way ; yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. Mr. Volker, in 1900 you sent Mr. H. G. Wilson, transportation 
commissioner of the Commercial Club, to Germany to make an examination, 
did you not? 

Mr. Volker. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. Have you a statement, Mr. Volker, compiled as to the tonnage 
carried by the inland waterways of Germany in 1911? 

Mr. Volker. Mr. Wilson had it and made a report, but I don’t have that 
report to-day. I saw, however, a publication—a book written by Mr. Frederic 
C. Howe, of New York—and the figures there given are evidently taken from 
the same source from which Mr. Wilson got his figures when he made his report. 

Judge Bland. Have you a memorandum of the figures showing the develop¬ 
ment of tonnage on the rivers in Germany? 

Mr. Volker. That report made by Mr. Howe, which I say was derived from 
the same source as Mr. Wilson’s figures, showed that the inland waterways of 
Germany carried in the year reported 76,600,000 tons, and that all the railways 
of the nation carried in the same year 408,000,000 tons; or, in other words, that 
the inland waterways carried one-sixth of the total tonnage carried. 

Judge Bland. What is the situation at Mannheim, Reinau, and Ludwigshafen? 

Mr. Volker. As Mr. Wilson showed, the facilities of inland waterways in 
Germany had been increased gradually. That nation had spent many or large 
amounts of money during the past 25 years on them. He gave a report of the 
business of several harbors, and it showed that as these facilities had been 
expanded the use of the waterways had increased, and had increased in very 
enormous proportions. He showed that at Mannheim in 1870 the harbor had 
41,000 tons of freight; that in 1901 it had 5,000,000 tons; that in 1909 it had 
6,000,000 tons. He showed that Reinau in 1901 had 562 tons; in 1909 it had 
3,797,000 tons. And he showed that in Ludwigshafen the harbor in 1870 had 
135,000 tons, and in 1909 it had 2,178,000 tons. 

Judge Bland. Mr. Volker, since the completion of the Panama Canal, what 
have you noticed as to its effect, with reference to the ocean-to-ocean rate in 
your business, with reference to the California business? 

Mr. Volker. It was very forcibly presented to us in this form, in the last 
analysis, that either we would have to establish manufacturing facilities at the 
Atlantic Ocean or we would have to abandon our business on the Pacific coast. 
Some of our factories are at Chicago. The reason was that the rail rates, as 
they were in effect as far as our goods were concerned, prior to a month ago— 
that the rates from New York via the Panama Canal would be about one-lialf 
of the rates that we could get from our factory at Chicago. In other words, 
we found that we could ship from Chicago to New York and via ocean and 
Panama Canal to San Francisco at a rate somewhat cheaper than we could 
get by shipping directly from Chicago to San Francisco. 

Judge Bland. Is there anything else now, Mr. Volker, that you have in mind? 

Mr. Volker. No. Only I would like to say this, that I think this matter is 
very important. It is very important for Kansas City. It is important for the 
entire Central West, and it is important for the Nation. 

Judge Bland. Any questions by the commission or the board of Mr. Volker? 

Chairman Black. I believe not. 

Judge Bland. That is all, Mr. Volker. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Smith. 

Leon Smith, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. Your name is Leon Smith and you are president of 
the Smith-McCord Dry Goods Co.? 

Mr. Smith. Yes, sir 

Congressman Borland. Engaged in wholesale dry-goods business, Mr. Smith? 

Mr. Smith. I am. 

Congressman Borland. Now, to what extent have you used the Missouri 
River traffic facilities during the last few seasons? 


246 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 


Mr. Smith. Well, I will ask you gentlemen to refer to page 126 of the 
brief. I have made a statement there in writing, showing our tonnage. It 
is not great like the tonnage in some other lines of business, but it is all high- 
class tonnage. I believe the records of the navigation company would show 
that we had been its most profitable patron, because of the classification of 
our stuff. That is on page 126. You will observe that we started in 1911 with 
3S9 tons, and up to September of this year we had given the navigation com¬ 
pany 940 tons with 200 tons in transit yet to be delivered to the navigation 
company. That would make 1,140 tons this year. Looking up our business, I 
find that we had received 3,500 tons, 900 of which had been given to the naviga¬ 
tion company. Our total movement will be likely about 5,000 tons, nearly all 
first-class stuff, which takes a high freight rate. 

Congressman Borland. Has your experience been satisfactory in bringing 
goods here in that way? 

Mr. Smith. Well, our experience has been satisfactory and unsatisfactory. 
Of course in the beginning it was bad. We have always patronized a boat line 
every time we had an opportunity. We had a navigation company before this 
one that went on the rocks; and we patronized that a good deal and happened 
to have a good deal of freight on one of the boats when it struck a snag in 
the river and went down. But we have been interested in river transportation, 
and we have given, as you will observe by this statement, more tonnage each 
year, because the service has been greatly improved each year; and if we had 
good service on this river as we have figured out we were going to have, we 
could easily give the navigation company 2,000 tons of freight. That would be 
largely first class—nearly all of it. 

Congressman Borland. The freight earnings from first-class freight, of 
course, are higher than the other classifications? 

Mr. Smith. Oh, yes. 

Congressman Borland. Now, Mr. Smith, you are only one of the dry-goods 
houses here, and what you say is typical of the dry-goods business here? 

Mr. Smith. Oh, I am sure it is in all the business. I don’t suppose there is 
a business man in Kansas City that has tried harder to support the navigation 
company than I have, or my firm. It was during my administration as presi¬ 
dent of this Commercial Club that this navigation company was started. Forty- 
two business men, out of 50 invited to meet, assembled here in these rooms 
one afternoon in the spring of 1909 and discussed this proposition. I went to 
Mr. Walter Dickey personally and talked it over with him and covered the 
whole ground before he had even thought about it, and it was nearly a year 
before we got under way. It took time. It was a big proposition for us to 
raise all that money, and I have usually found it takes a lot of time and effort 
and tenacity to put over anything worth while. I may say that I am the head 
of a business here that runs up into a good many millions a year. And when 
we came to Kansas City this city was good enough to help us and give us 15 
months’ rent free and to provide business quarters; and even at that at the end 
of three years we had lost one-third of our capital—not only the effort we had 
put in and all our time and effort we had invested, but had lost one-third of 
our capital; and there were some of the members of the company that thought 
then that the business, immediate and prospective, was hardly big enough for 
us to continue; but other members of the firm had a wider vision and we 
stayed with it and we made a good success of it. 

Now, in raising the money for this transportation company I gave up a good 
deal of time, enjoying a wide acquaintance here among the business men. and 
solicited a good many of these funds. I happened to be chairman of the com- 
mittee to wait on financial institutions who are not shippers of freight. The 
banks of this town chipped in $80,000, and they haven’t anything to ship and 
had no ax to grind except just because they were interested in the general up¬ 
building of Kansas City and this part of the country. I don’t know of any 
other reason that they could have had, but they are in here nearly $100,000 
worth, just the banks alone, who have no merchandise whatever to sliip. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Smith, you are satisfied with the continuous im¬ 
provement of the channel that the boat line is going to be a successful insti¬ 
tution? 

Mr. Smith. I have never had any other thought. The least of our troubles 
has been the tonnage. We know the tonnage is here. I am sure you will be 
impressed with that fact. There is plenty of tonnage, but it is a question of our 
ability to be able to take care of it. We could not use he river unimproved. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 247 


We have just had that difficulty all along. Now we must work with the Govern¬ 
ment. That was one of the arguments I used to get subscriptions, in soliciting 
and collecting the money, that we had taken on the best partner we could have, 
Uncle Sam, and we were going to work hand in hand on this thing, and I 
think we have kept the faith. 

Surely we would not build terminals and buy boats just as a temporary 
proposition, and spend all this money. We are not that rich. We are in the 
game for keeps. I happen to be a director in the boat-line company, and I 
never heard any other kind of talk around the office over there among our 
directors. We have got in to stay and want you to stay with us. 

Congressman Borland. Any further questions, gentlemen? Very well, we 
thank you, Mr. Smith. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Ennis. 

Frank Ennis, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. Your firm is the Ennis-Hanly-Blackburn Coffee Co.? 

Mr. Ennis. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. I will hand you that statement that you prepared the 
other day, and which was handed to me. You are dealers in coffee which you 
import direct from Brazil, do you? 

Mr. Ennis. Yes, sir; principally. 

Congressman Borland. Now, tell the board briefly the relation of the port of 
New Orleans to the importation of coffee and to the use that is made of the 
river. 

Mr. Ennis. Well, for the year 1914-15 there was approximately 2.242,210 
bags of coffee came to the port of New Orleans and was distributed to interior 
points. That is approximately 9,000 cars of coffee in the year, or 30 cars a day. 
A great deal of that coffee comes to Kansas City, St. Louis, and upriver points. 
The use of the river has been very great. We brought some coffee direct from 
Brazil in order to demonstrate that it could be done by water, and the service 
was very satisfactory and we would have continued it only for the fact that 
the transportation companies on the Mississippi River could not or would not 
absorb the marine insurance, so that we were obliged to give it up temporarily. 
But we are in hopes that things can be adjusted so that coffees can be brought 
direct from Brazil by water. If the insurance and other things could be 
handled properly, I think a great deal of the coffee—one-half of the coA'ee that 
does come in—in fact, I am informed that more than half that comes to St. 
Louis—would come by water if satisfactory water-transportations arrangements 
could be made. I know if the 6-foot channel were maintained in the Missouri 
River from St. Louis and the service was regular that no doubt we would 
bring 50 per cent of our shipments from New Orleans by water and from St. 
Louis likewise. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Ennis, when you brought those shipments in 
from Brazil and transferred them at the port of New Orleans were they ware¬ 
housed there or transferred direct to the barge? 

Mr. Ennis. No, sir; the forwarding company there transferred them direct 
from the steamer to the barge and then they were retransferred at the St. 
Louis dock to the Kansas City-Missouri River Navigation Co., and I would 
say that the service that they rendered us was just as good delivery made of 
the coffee—which is rather hard stuff to handle, as the bags gets torn, etc.— 
but they came in in just as good condition as they ever came in on the railroad. 

Congressman Borland. Now, that is incoming freight that would fill the 
barges at the port landing which had come down with wheat and agricultural 
products downstream? 

Mr. Ennis. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And incoming freight would be coffee and sugar from 
New Orleans and other commodities of that kind? 

Mr. Ennis. Yes, Sir. 

Congressman Borland. Making a reciprocal shipment back and forth? 

Mr. Ennis. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. I wish you would give from that table you have 
there the number of bags of coffee imported by the various coffee importers 
in Kansas City, of which you are only one. You have there a memorandum, I 
believe, of the amount of coffee importations of other concerns here. 



248 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Mr. Ennis. This is for the coffee-crop year of July 1, 1914, to June 30, 1915. 
The Ridenour-Baker Grocery Co., their imports show 12,000 bags; the Ridenour- 
Baker Mercantile Co., a branch of theirs, 6,250 bags; the Ennis-Hanly-Black- 
burn Coffee Co., 4.250 bags; the Paddock Coffee & Spice Co., 2.750 bags; the 
Bour Coffee Co., 2,000 bags; and the Kansas City Wholesale Grocery Co., 500 
bags. Now, this only represents coffee that came on direct importation, direct 
to the purchaser. The majority of the jobbers and restaurants here purchase 
coffees what we call “ spot coffees,” either at shipside or stored at New Orleans, 
and they would not show on this sheet. Of course, the Ridenour-Baker Co.— 
this is only a drop in the bucket of what they import. They are competitors 
of ours, by the way. This does not show anything like what they bring in at 
all, but this is direct importation. This coffee moved directly and was handled 
from steamer to barge without any rehandling at all from shipside. The Gov¬ 
ernment entry could be made right at the steamer and the coffees handled by 
barge just the same as by railroad and would cut out considerable of the cost 
of handling, too. 

Col. Winslow. What is the total weight of that coffee, please? 

Mr. Ennis. I have not figured this at all. 

Col. Winslow. What is the weight of a bag? 

Mr. Ennis. One hundred and thirty-two pounds. 

Congressman Borland. The total is 27,750 bags. 

Mr. Ennis. This is only a small portion of the coffee that comes to Kansas 
City, because it is only the direct importation. The majority of us buy what 
are called spot coffees direct from the importers in New Orleans that are in 
store there and that do not show on this. 

Congressman Borland. The great majority of the coffee is not shown on that? 

Mr. Ennis. Brought direct from New Orleans; yes. 

Congressman Borland. A large amount of it? 

Mr. Ennis. Yes; probably 10 cars of coffee come to Kansas City a day. I 
judge that is approximately correct. 

Congressman Borland. Now, I believe you said it would be possible, if 
barges ran through from New Orleans and there was sufficient marine insur¬ 
ance and other facilities given, to load a barge with coffee belonging to various 
houses here so that it would all be brought in one barge, or at ieast you could 
bunch your shipments? 

Mr. Ennis. Well, there could be a bargeload of coffee every day, I should 
judge, from New Orleans to St. Louis. 

Congressman Borland. Every day? 

Mr. Ennis. Every day. Well, I don’t know—30 cars—a trainload of cars 
comes into New Orleans a day for interior points and New Orleans also—30 
cars a day, the imports show. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. I will call Mr. C. J. Sclimelzer. 

C. J. Schmelzer, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. Please state your business. 

Mr. Schmelzer. Wholesale sporting goods. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Schmelzer, you are president of the Schmelzer 
Arms Co.? 

Mr. Schmelzer. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Dealing in sporting goods? 

Mr. Schmelzer. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And sportsmen’s supplies, musical instruments, toys, 
and that sort of thing? 

Mr. Schmelzer. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. To what extent have you made use of the boat line 
as a means of transportation in recent seasons? I have here, on page 117 of 
this brief, an extract from your records. 

Mr. Schmelzer. Well, I would say that for the year 1913 we shipped less 
than 10.000 pounds; in 1914 we shipped 100,000 pounds; and in 1915 we shipped 
about 150,000 pounds, which is about 5 per cent of the tonnage that we have; 
and if we could have the proper service on the boat line, we could just reverse 
the proposition and ship at least 85 per cent—75 per cent to 85 per cent—of 
our tonnage by water from St. Louis here. I might add that our freight 
originates almost altogether in New England; some little portion in the 
Central States; but we could ship conveniently to St. Louis in carload lots and 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 249 


transfer to the river and make use of it for at least 75 per cent of the com¬ 
modities that we handle if we had the proper facilities and proper service. 

Congressman Borland. As your service has been improving you have im¬ 
proved in the shipments? 

Mr. Schmelzer. It has been improving; yes. I am shipping a carload of 
goods from Cleveland via St. Louis and having them transferred to the boat 
line, because I am in no particular hurry for the goods, although the service 
now is within 6 to 10 days between here and St. Louis. If we had a service 
of from 4 to 6 days, I should say we could ship at least two-tliirds of the goods 
by water that we ship now and could make use of it in that way. 

Congressman Borland. Were the shipments in 1913 any measure of your 
ability to ship? 

Mr. Schmelzer. Not in any sense at all. We did not feel that the boat line 
was ready to take on business at all in 1913. 

Congressman Borland. Now, what you say is typical of other sporting goods 
houses in Kansas City and their territory? 

Mr. Schmelzer. I should feel so, yes; and I feel that as soon as the river 
is in shape to use, not only Kansas City shippers will make use of it, but this 
entire territory. It is nothing uncommon for us to distribute carloads to com¬ 
panies at outlying points from Kansas City that partially originate here and 
that we control the routing of. 

Congressman Borland. Of course you have not considered this phase of it, 
but, as a matter of fact, your high-grade tonnage coming from the East fills 
up the barges that have gone down with loads of agricultural products originat¬ 
ing in the West and constituting interchange traffic, giving the boat line a haul 
both ways. You have not considered that proposition in your statement here? 

Mr. Schmelzer. No, sir. 

Congressman Borland. But you have been considering your tonnage being 
westbound tonnage; that is the fact? 

Mr. Schmelzer. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Now, that is all, Mr. Schmelzer, unless you gentle¬ 
men wish to ask something. There being no further questions, you will be 
excused. 

(Witness excused.) * 

II. L. Bedpath, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Redpath, you are the president or manager of the 
American Radiator Co., are you? 

Mr. Redpath. Yes, sir; I am manager of the plant of the American Radiator 
Co. in Kansas City. 

Congressman Borland. You have begun to use now, to some extent, the 
boat line in recent shipments, have you? 

Mr. Redpath. We have only made some very small shipments on the boat 
line down the river recently. ' ’ 

Congressman Borland. I believe you have got that already in the brief. I 
want to refer to that. 

Mr. Redpath. Well, we have made shipments of only two cars of freight 
down the river. We have not considered the matter very much up to this time. 
We moved down the river to St. Louis about 1,344 tons of freight, finished 
product. We bring into St. Louis about 9,828 tons of raw material each year, 
coming through the St. Louis gateway. 

Congressman Borland. Those are your requirements? 

Mr. Redpath. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. You have just begun to use the river? 

Mr. Redpath. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Any questions on that, gentlemen? That is all, Mr. 
Redpath, thank you. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Maxwell. 

R. M. Maxwell, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. Will you give to the stenographer the name of your 

firm? ^ 

Mr. Maxwell. My name is R. M. Maxwell of the Maxwell-McClure-Fitts 

Drv Goods Co., wholesale dry goods. 

Congressman Borland. You are in the furnishing goods and notions and 
jobbing? 


250 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Mr. Maxwell. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And wholesale? 

Mr. Maxwell. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Have you begun to make use of the river much in 
your recent shipments? 

Mr. Maxwell. We have used the river ever since the boat line was started. 
We all were stockholders in the boat line before this and also in this line, and we 
have used it wherever it was possible. In the past one of our greatest obstacles 
was the service that was rendered. This year the service has been quite 
improved over what it was last year. I think in 1914 we gave the boat line 
about 157 tons; and this year something like 231 tons. Our business is com¬ 
prised of high-class merchandise and we can not talk tonnage like some of our 
friends can; but in making a little estimate yesterday I feel that I am abso¬ 
lutely safe in saying that we can double that tonnage if we had something like 
daily service. This year, while the service has been practically the same, we 
have doubled over what it was last year; our tonnage has nearly doubled. 

Congressman Borland. So with daily sailings and regular schedule you think 
you could more than double your tonnage? 

Mr. Maxwell. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Your goods are first-class traffic? 

Mr. Maxwell. Practically all first class—high-class merchandise—nothing 
below third class. 

Congressman Borland. Consisting of notions, toys, and toilet articles- 

Mr. Maxwell. Yes; and underwear, hosiery, and kindred lines that take a 
high-class rate. I might say we have had less complaint for damage over the 
boat line than we usually experience with the all-rail lines. That also applies 
to theft, for some reason; our merchandise comes in in very nice shape and 
we are anxious to use the boat line wherever it is possible. 

Congressman Borland. That is all, Mr. Maxwell, unless the gentlemen have 
some questions. 

(Witness excused.) 

Judge Bland. Mr. Redpath wants to be recalled in order to correct a state¬ 
ment as to tonnage. 

It. L. Redpath, recalled, further testified: Gentlemen, in making my state¬ 
ment as to tonnage inbound, I gave it as 9,998 tons. I want to correct that 
one item. It is 14.069 tons. 

(W it ness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Richards. 

W. B. Richards, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. You may state your name. 

Mr. Richards. W. B. Richards, of the Richards & Conover Hardware Co. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Richards, you are in the wholesale hardware 
business? 

Mr. Richards. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And connected with one of the oldest pioneer hard¬ 
ware houses in the Missouri Valley, are you not? 

Mr. Richards. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And have grown up in the hardware business? 

Mr. Richards. Grown gray in it. 

Congressman Borland. Can you give us now your shipments by the Missouri 
River line, especially in regard to the recent season? 

Mr. Richards. Our record that we have looked up goes back to 1911, at 
which time we had 168 tons; and it has increased every year except last year up 
to ten times that amount, or more. This year we have shipped over 2,000 tons 
up to date and our record up to the 9th of this month was 1,932 tons; and 
that is about 15 per cent of our gross tonnage moving west. 

The 1913 tonnage was about 17 per cent of the gross movement and, as 
everybody in this section remembers, that was the hottest year and the driest 
year we have had in a long time. The river was in very bad condition and 
we had a great deal of difficulty in getting our tonnage in on account of the 
difficulties of navigation. So that the next year, which was last year, our 
tonnage dropped down to 266 tons on account of our experience of' the year 
before and delayed shipments; and some of them were laid out way late into 
the winter. This year, when we have had the best rains that we have ever 
known in this country, without regard to the improvement of the Missouri 



MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 251 


River I think we could have navigated if they had not had any improvements 
at all; hut with the help of what improvements we have had this has been the 
best year, and if we have a continued good channel and improved conditions 
I think our tonnage would run up to 50 per cent of our total tonnage, which 
would amount to probably 5,000 or 6,000 tons a year. 

Congressman Borland. Fifty per cent would amount to 5,000 or 6,000 tons 
a year ? 

Air. Richards. Yes; that we could readily move by river. 

Congressman Borland. Your total tonnage, then, is over 10,000 tons? 

Air. Richards. Our total tonnage last year was 13,000 tons and this year, up 
to the 9th of October, it was 10,500 tons, of which 1,932 tons moved by river, 
and we now since that date have received and routed 400 tons more that will 
come by river before the close of the season. 

Congressman Borland. Air. Richards, the head of your firm was connected 
with the earlier boat lines here that were unsuccessful on account of the want 
of an improved channel? 

Air. Richards. Yes; our senior member of the firm, Air. John F. Richards, 
came to this country in 1858 and took a stock of hardware from St. Louis to 
Leavenworth, Kans., by boat. It was small in those days, but, as he has re¬ 
marked, the rate on hardware at that time—his whole stock was taken from 
St. Louis to Leavenworth at a flat rate of 35 cents per hundred pounds, which 
included everything he had; and to-day the rate on hardware is 45 cents from 
St. Louis to Kansas City, and sometimes, I think. I do not know whether this 
is real progress or not in the way of rates. 

Congressman Borland. Any further questions? That is all, Air. Richards, 
unless you have something else you want to give. 

Air. Richards. I want to remark that our tonnage, while not as valuable as 
Air. Smith’s in the dry-goods line, 1 think our tonnage is the largest of any one 
shipper by the transportation company. 

Congressman Borland. I just want to ask you, of course, you are speaking 
only for one wholesale hardware concern, and what you say is applicable in a 
business way to other wholesale houses? 

Air. Richards. Certainly is. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Air. Jenkins, of the Jenkins Music Co. 

C. W. Jenkins, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. You are connected with the J. W. Jenkins Sons’ 
Alusic Co.? 

Air. Jenkins. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. You are jobbers in musical intruments and musical 
goods of all kinds, are you? 

Air. Jenkins. Well, not of all kinds. We do not job pianos. We have 13 
stores outside of Kansas City in this territory. 

Congressman Borland. You have 13 stores outside of Kansas City? 

Air. Jenkins. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. You handle pianos, though? 

Air. Jenkins. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And you are jobbers in other lines of musical instru¬ 
ments ? 

All*. Jenkins. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. To what extent have you used in recent seasons the 
boat line company? 

Air. Jenkins. Well, we have used the boat line ever since it was started. 
Last year or during the last 12 months we have given the boat line 260 tons 
of freight. 

Congressman Borland. During the last 12 months you have had 260 tons? 

Air. Jenkins. Yes, sir: 

Congressman Borland. What did that consist of—what class of freight? 

Air. Jenkins. Principally pianos. 

Congressman Borland. Principally pianos? 

All*. Jenkins. Some talking machines. 

Congressman Borland. A\ hat was your expeiience in the handling of that 
freight? 

Air. Jenkins. Very satisfactory. 

Congressman Borland. Very satisfactory? 

Air. Jenkins. Yes, sir. 


252 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO. ; TO THE MOUTH. 


Congressman Borland. You found you were able to bring in pianos by boat 
line as readily as by rail? 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes. We had only one claim against the boat line company on 
a piano, and that was very small and it was settled very promptly. 

Congressman Borland. They came in good condition, I understand? 

Mr. Jenkins. Y r es, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And you have had only one claim growing out of the 
shipment of pianos? 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Assuming that there would be a permanent channel 
maintained on the Missouri River and regular sailings, daily sailings, to what 
extent would you increase that tonnage, if at all? 

Mr. Jenkins. We would be able to give them somewhere between 900 and 
1,000 tons of freight. 

Congressman Borland. And your freight takes a first-class rate? 

Mr. Jenkins. All first class. 

Congressman Borland. All coming in from the East? 

Mr. Jenkins. l r es. 

Congressman Borland. Incoming freight? That is all, Mr. Jenkins. Your 
testimony is typical of the musical-instrument line in this city? 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Now, Mr. Lester. 

John C. Lester, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Lester, vou are with the Ridenour-Baker Grocery 
Co.? 

Mr. Lester. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Wholesale groceries? 

Mr. Lester. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. To what extent has your firm used the river as a 
means of transportation? 

Mr. Lester. Why, in the last four years—I have a memorandum here which 
you will permit me to refer to? 

Congressman Borland. Yes; you may refer to your memorandum and give 
us the figures. 

Mr. Lester. In 1913 we used it to the extent of 154 tons; in 1914, 161 tons; 
and to October 1, 1915, 758 tons. 

Congressman Borland. October 1, 1915, 758 tons? 

Mr. Lester. Yes, sir; that amount should be increased by about 50 tons now 
in transit. 

Congressman Borland. So you will run over 800 tons in the season of 1915? 

Mr. Lester. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And your freight in 1913 was only 154 tons? 

Mr. Lester. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. So that your shipments in 1913 were hardly a 
criterion for use- 

Mr. Lester (interrupting). Absolutely no criterion at all. 

Congressman Borland. Now, what class of freight is that that comes to you? 

Mr. Lester. That is mostly third, fourth, and some fifth (‘lass—mostly third 
and fourth. 

Congressman Borland. That is mostly incoming freight? 

Mr. Lester. Incoming freight from points east of the Mississippi River. 

Congressman Borland. Now, I assume, Mr. Lester, on a certain class of your 
business prompt delivery and regular service is important? 

Mr. Lester. Very important, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Assuming that the channel is completed and regular 
sailings and regular schedule are maintained, to what extent can you increase 
that tonnage? To what extent are you disposed to increase it? 

Mr. Lester. Why, our total tonnage is something like 65,000 tons. We could 
give 70 per cent of that to the Missouri River boat line; but of course in our 
business, where we handle all classes of freight, some will naturally seek an 
all-rail route and some will naturally seek the slower river route. We realize 
that in the nature of things the all-rail route is obliged to be quicker, while 
we have received some remarkably quick shipments by river, we do not ex¬ 
pect the river to give us a quicker service than the railroads. Hence we know 



MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 253 


that of the 70 per cent I have just mentioned, a portion will always take the 
rails and some will always be shipped by river. 

Congressman Borland. Do you bring any sugar, coffee, and molasses from 
Ne\v Orleans? 

Mr. Lester. Yes, sir; not much sugar nowadays, but some. 

Congressman Borland. But you bring in coffee though, don’t you? 

Mr. Lester. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. You are speaking now of the wholesale-grocery job¬ 
bing line in general and what you say would apply to the business generally 
or to other wholesale houses in Kansas City and Missouri River points. 

Mr. I ..ester. It is my belief that it would. 

Congressman Borland. Of course there are a large number of grocery houses 
in this territory. 

Mr. Lester. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Very large number? 

Mr. Lester. Yes, sir; and some are here and will speak for themselves. 

Congressman Borland. I believe your company was the one that Ennis men¬ 
tioned in his testimony as the largest importer of coffee in this market? 

Mr. Lester. I don’t claim that, sir, but I am glad to hear it. AVe are large 
importers of coffee. 

Congressman Borland. I believe he gave figures to that effect. That is all, 
thank you. 

Judge Bland. Mr. Lester, if the use of the lower river were developed in 
connection with the Missouri River, then would you bring in sugar by New 
Orleans if there was a differential rate? 

Mr. Lester. Unquestionably. 

Judge Bland. In very large quantities? 

Mr. Lester. Yes, sir. Indeed w T e have brought sugar that way. 

Judge Bland. That is all. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. I will call Mr. Overton. 

Chari.es B. Overton, called as a witness, testified : 

Congressman Borland. Air. Overton, give the stenographer your name. 

Air. Overton. Charles B. Overton, of Hettinger Bros. Manufacturing Co. 

Congressman Borland. Your line of business is dental supplies? 

Air. Overton. Dental, surgical, and hospital supplies. 

Congressman Borland. Now, that is a line of business that seems a little 
bit remote from river transportation, but you may tell the board what ex¬ 
perience you have had in using the river. 

Air. Overton. AA T e have handled this year about four carloads by the river 
and found it very satisfactory. 

Congressman Borland. What was the class of freight? 

Air. Overton. Our freight is almost altogether first class or better. All high 
class. 

Congressman Borland. It consists of plaster of Paris and dental chairs- 

Mr. Overton. Yes; and various hospital supplies used in our business. 

Congressman Borland. I assume, of course, in your business especially, the 
question of regular service and promptness of delivery is an important element? 

Mr. Overton. Very important element. 

Congressman Borland. And as that promptness of delivery and regular service 
have increased the use of the line of communication has increased? 

Air. Overton. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Assuming we had regular sailings between St. Louis 
and Kansas City, and on an improved channel, to what extent, if at all, could 
you increase that? 

Air. Overton. With regular daily sailings, I think we could give the river 
about SO per cent of our business. 

Congressman Borland. And about how much would that be in tonnage? Can 
you approximate it? Your tonnage is not very large, of course; but in propor¬ 
tion to the character of the business. 

Air. Overton. AVhy, our tonnage, probably, will run from two to four thousand 
pounds a day, I should say. That is just an estimate. I have no figures on it. 

Congressman Borland. One to two tons a day? 

AD. Overton. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And about 80 per cent of that you could give to the 
river with regular service? 



254 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Mr. Overton. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Your distribution territory reaches out over the 
Southwest, I believe? 

Mr. Overton. We cover about 12 States and Territories with our traveling 
men. 

Congressman Borland. I think that is all, Mr. Overton. We are much 
obliged to you. 

(Witness excused.) 

O. V. Wilson, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. Give your name to the stenographers. 

Mr. Wilson. O. V. Wilson. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Wilson, state your business. 

Mr. Wilson. Wholesale groceries—Ryley-Wilson Grocery Co. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Wilson, you have been pretty active on the com¬ 
mittees that have gone to Congress—before the Rivers and Harbors Board in 
relation to the adoption of this Missouri River project—have you not? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; I have always had great faith in the river improvement, 
and I believe it is the greatest asset that this great West has. 

Congressman Borland. I wish you would preface your remarks, Mr. Wilson, 
by telling of your experience there with the Rivers and Harbors Committee of 
Congress and why we were induced to begin this boat line experiment here. 

Mr. Wilson. When we first began to go before the Rivers and Harbors Com¬ 
mittee of Congress, Mr. Burton, of Ohio, was chairman of that committee, and 
we never met with much encouragement from Mr. Burton at that time or 
during his administration; but when Mr. Alexander, of New York, became the 
chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Committee we induced him to come out 
here and make a trip down the river. Mr. Alexander was a gentleman who 
had made a careful study of rivers all over the world of navigable quality, and 
when he struck that stretch of the river that had been improved many years 
ago—from Jefferson City to the mouth of the Gasconade—which formed, gentle¬ 
men, possibly the worst crossing of the river, he himself took soundings for 
part of the distance and saw the soundings taken for the remainder of the 
distance, and he also had with him the Government engineer. And when he 
learned the deterioration of the work at different places there during the many 
years that it had been completed, without any repairs being made on it at 
all, why he at once became a very ardent supporter of the improvement of 
the Missouri River, and so reported to Congress, and he supported his report 
with a very strong speech before the House of Congress upon the feasibility of 
the improvement of the Missouri River, and he became a very warm supporter 
of the improvement of the river; and from that time on his reports, as far as I 
know, have all been favorable to the project of the improvement of the river. 

Now, when we were told by the Rivers and Harbors Committee—by Mr. Alex¬ 
ander—that if we would show our faith in that work by raising capital large 
enough to equip a boat line, why, the Government would do their part by 
adopting the report, which they afterwards did, as a project to be completed in 
10 years at a cost of .$20,000,000, we came home and we raised over $1,000,000 
in a 30-day campaign here to complete that work; and I am free to say that I 
thought that certainly was the end of it, as far as any trouble was concerned, 
from the fact that I regarded it as absolute contract between the Government 
and our people. We had certainly done our part. 

We have spent a great deal of money in the experimental stages of this work; 
we were picneers. almost, in the navigation of the inland waters of this country’ 
and we have always had an abiding faith in it; and I still believe that when 
the $20,000,000 shall have been spent and we get a G-foot channel or more, 
which I am satisfied we will get, as we did on that stretch from the Gasconade 
to Jefferson City, although that work was done only to obtain a 6-foot channel, 
that we will have one of the finest streams of water in the world; and I 
believe that the entire West will derive a benefit from it many times greater 
than Kansas City itself will derive. 

Now, if you gentlemen will just consider for one moment the immense 
amount of grain that is raised in this western country—take the State of 
Kansas which alone last year raised 182.Otto.000 bushels of wheat. One time 
this year it approximated 100,000,060 bushels would be saved, although she 
raised a great deal more than that; and if by operating boats we can reduce 
the freight on all the grain raised in Montana and the Dakotas, Nebraska, 
western Iowa, Kansas, and Colorado and at least half of the State of Missouri 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 255 


5 cents a bushel, that would be a saving to the farmers of this western country 
of more than the entire $20,000,000 per annum. 

Congressman Borland. Now, Mr. Wilson, that showing made to Congress in 
190S and 1910, and finally in 1912. when the project was formally adopted, was 
based upon the business transacted by Kansas City and the freight moving 
through Kansas City at least five or six or seven years ago? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And that volume of business transacted in Kansas 
City as a center and the business moving through Kansas City has increased 
steadily from that time to this? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And the commercial interests are greater now and 
the use of the river more imperative than it was at that time? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes; Kansas City has been increasing in business, and her 
tributary territory has been increasing in business ever since. The bank clear¬ 
ings for two days a week ago were over $17,000,000 a day, and last week they 
were over $85,000,000 for the week, and the business is increasing here steadily. 

Congressman Borland. And the same may be said to be true of the business 
of the boat line in the past three seasons; it has been increasing by tremen- 
dou s percenta ges ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And you gentlemen do not regard the river traffic in 
1913, the tonnage actually moving by river in 1913, as having been an indica¬ 
tion of the commercial possibilities of the river? 

Mr. Wilson. No, sir. As a matter of fact, I have never been able to use the 
river very much up to the present time, notwithstanding the fact that I am a 
large stockholder in the boat line and very favorable to it, from the fact that 
I am in the grocery business and a large proportion of my tonnage is of a 
more or less perishable nature, and as long as the navigation of the river was 
in an experimental stage we did not feel like taking the risk of encountering 
the long delays we have had in former years. This year we have had a little 
better service, and the tonnage has been a little better, but even this year I 
was unfortunate in losing one shipment in a barge that was sunk; but my 
shipments have been comparatively small. 

The tonnage of my house is approximately 25,000 tons per annum in and the 
same amount out, and then there is possibly about 5.000 tons that comes from 
the South and East at the present time, which I could ship over the boat line. 
Well, naturally, I would not expect to send that all over the boat line, but I 
would expect 'to ship and be able to ship by the boat line 3,000 or 4,000 tons 
per annum. 

The reason that sugar is not moved from New Orleans to Kansas City now, 
referred to by Mr. Lester, is that we use a large portion of beet sugar that 
comes from Colorado and California and a large portion of cane sugar that 
comes from California and the sugar that comes from Hawaii. On account of 
this sugar coming in free of duty we have always had the advantage of duty- 
paid sugar, and for that reason we are able to buy our sugar from the Pacific 
coast and the Western States where they grow these beets and make beet 
sugar. 

So our tonnage from the East is approximately about 5,000 tons out of 
25.000 tons incoming to Kansas City. 

Congressman Borland. That condition will be changed to some extent by the 
regular operation of the Panama Canal, will it not? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And the restoration of the port of New Orleans? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. We absolutely need this river improvement more 
since the completion of the Panama Canal tLan ever before. As a matter of 
fact, our manufacturers will be driven from the interior of the country to the 
seaboard cities unless we have water navigation, on account of the competition 
brought about by the completion of the Panama Canal. 

Congressman Borland. I want to bring out this point clearly. You have 
already covered it, but I want to bring it out in a pointed way. The success 
of the boat-line company on the river and the successful use of the river means 
a continual persistent effort to build up the business on the river? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And a check placed on the growth of the boat line 
and the improvements of the river would blight the business just to that 
extent? 


256 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Mr. Wilson. It would. 

Congressman Borland. And if the Government were to abandon the river at 
this time, it would make it much more difficult for another navigation com¬ 
pany to resume in the future? 

Mr. Wilson. It would, undoubtedly. I have been connected with every boat 
line organized on this river since I have been here, for 33 years, and have had 
stock in all, and I lost considerable freight on the old Mason Line, on which 
we had no insurance, and the line did not assume any liability, and we had to 
stand the loss ourselves. And I have always realized the importance of this 
river as an asset in the growth and welfare of all this western country, and I 
have put money in every line organized. 

Congressman Borland. That is what I want to bring out, that the result of 
business men attempting to use the boat line on an unimproved river is 
unfortunate? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And consequently the tonnage they offer the boat-line 
company is limited? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. But as the river is improved the use of the river for 
navigation purposes increases? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. In other words, we have had to educate the public, 
the business public, to the fact that the river could be used as a profitable 
business venture? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And the business of the boat line has increased each 
season ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. And I want to say this as a stockholder: I never expected 
any return in large money dividends from that boat line. I think the opinion 
of our stockholders is that we want to get our dividends in the shape of re¬ 
duced freight rates, and we do not expect to make any large profit out of the 

stock, because I think the proper policy of the boat-line company is that when 
we begin, with a completed river, to make money on the SO per cent of the rail- 
rate reduction, then I think we should reduce the freight to 70 per cent of the 

rail rate; and if we make more than a reasonably small profit at that rate, the 

rate should be further reduced to GO per cent of the rail rate, and, if possible, 
get it down to 50 per cent. And my idea is—I have, of course, a large line of 
credit all through this western country—and my idea is to benefit the entire 
West by lowering freight rates to seaboard on grain. As a matter of fact, now 
the price of grain is regulated by the price at seaboard, and, for instance, to 
illustrate it, if wheat should be worth at seaboard in New York $1.30, and the 
freight was 30 cents by rail from this section to seaboard, that day in this sec¬ 
tion wheat would be worth $1, regardless of whether milled in this country and 
used here or shipped out. And if a man could only get 90 cents here and could 
get $1.30 at seaboard, and the freight was 30 cents, naturally he would ship to 
seaboard. Consequently every cent per bushel that we can reduce the freight 
on the great grain products of this great and growing AYest goes right into the 
pockets of the farmer and adds to the prosperity of this entire western country. 

Congressman Borland. Have the members of the board any questions to ask 
Mr. Wilson? 

Chairman Black. You are quite familiar, I suppose, with the congressional 
acts with regard to the Missouri River—this portion of it? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Black. And as I recall it, after the first report made by the engi¬ 
neering department under the orders of Congress recommending the improve¬ 
ment no action was taken by Congress for several years, and Congress then, 
for some reason, required again a report as to the feasibility and not as to the 
propriety of the project? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Black. And that report stated that it was feasible to improve this 
river and made an estimate of the cost? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Chairman Black. Then Congress adopted that project definitely? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Black. And work was going on? 

Mr. Wilson. l"es, sir. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 257 


Chairman Black. Now, without any further report from the engineering de¬ 
partment at all, in the last rivers and harbors bill a clause was inserted calling 
for a renewed investigation of this river, implying doubt on the part of Congress 
as to the propriety of its former action? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Chairman Black. Can you tell us why that was? 

Mr. Wilson. I can give you my opinion of why that was. My opinion of that 
is that Mr. Burton was the cause of it. I think it is common knowledge of 
everybody in the last Congress that Mr. Burton organized the opposition to the 
rivers and harbors bill and threatened to iilibuster, as I understand it, unless 
it was defeated; and it was, in my judgment, through the efforts of Mr. Burton 
that this doubt was expressed and this clause put in the bill requiring this addi¬ 
tional investigation. 

Chairman Black. Had conditions changed in the Missouri Valley at all be¬ 
tween the time of the adoption of the project by Congress and the expression of 
this doubt by Congress? 

Mr. Wilson. The only change in conditions was the completion of the Panama 
Canal, which made the improvement of the river all the more necessary. 

Congressman Borland. In all other respects the change was along the line 
of the growth of the business of the boat line and of all other business? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir; that is true. 

Chairman Black. Was there any change in physical conditions? 

Mr. Wilson. No, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And no change in business, except a steady growth? 

Mr. Wilson. That is correct. 

(Witness excused.) 


C. D. Dooley, called as a witness, testified as follows; 

Congressman Borland. Give your name to the stenographer. 

Mr. Dooley. C. D. Dooley. 

Congressman Borland. And what is your occupation, Mr. Dooley? 

Mr. Dooley. Traffic manager for Peet Bros. 

Congressman Borland. And Peet Bros, are manufacturers of soaps on a 
large scale, are they not? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And located here in the Kaw River bottoms? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes; in Kansas City, Ivans. 

Congressman Borland. I wish you would tell us, Mr. Dooley, the use you 
have made of river transportation in recent seasons, in the business of your 
house. 

Mr, Dooley. We have been using the river since the boat line started, but 
intermittently until the last year, the season of 1915, during which time we 
have given them approximately 200 tons of eastbound freight; that is, soap, 
and about 500 tons of westbound freight; that is, raw material, consisting 
principally of caustic soda. 

Congressman Borland. And cocoanut oil? 

Mr. Dooley. No; we have not given them any cocoanut oil this year. 

Congressman Borland. So you have given them about 500 tons of westbound 
tonnage and 200 tons of eastbound tonnage this year? 

Mr. Dooley. l"es. 

Congressman Borland. And that is your record for 1915? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes. 

' Congressman Borland. Prior to that, in the prior seasons, you say your use 
of the river was intermittent? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes. I mean by that, we probably did not approximate that 
amount of tonnage, although we used them. 

Congressman Borland. So that, in 1913, your record would be considerably 


lower than that? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes, sir. , . , , , 

Congressman Borland. Do you find a growing satisfaction in the use of the 

river as the service is improved? 

Mr Dooley. This has been the most satisfactory year that we have had; yes. 
Congressman Borland. What is the gross tonnage of your establishment that 
moves^in each direction, either eastbound or westbound, covered by shipments 
to the Missouri River? 


H. Doc. 4G3, 64-1 


17 



258 MISSOURI RIVER EROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Mr. Dooley. Why, for the year, I should say it approximates 6,000 tons. 

Congressman Borland. Now, Mr. Dooley, assuming that there would be a 
permanent improved channel, with a 6-foot depth and regular sailings, regular 
schedules, between Kansas City and St. Louis, what amount of that freight 
would be available and could be diverted to the river? 

Mr. Dooley. For an eight or nine months season I would say about 4,000 
tons. 

Congressman Borland. And do you feel disposed to do so? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes; we are stockholders in the boat line and we feel that we 
are vitally interested in the success of the line. All we need is the service, 
and that in itself would draw more tonnage. 

Congressman Borland. So that the season of 1915 is just about the beginning 
of your real use of the river? 

Mr. Dooley. We hope so; yes. 

Congressman Borland. Now, you are, of course, one of several soap manu¬ 
facturers here? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. I wish you would state to the board what has been 
the effect upon the soap rates of the opening of the Panama Canal, the ocean- 
to-ocean soap rate? 

Mr. Dooley. Why, the effect has been that the manufacturers at seaboard 
have now, by the use of vessels operating through the Panama Canal, a rate of 
about 40 cents. Our rate from the Missouri River, all-rail, is 80 cents. 

Congressman Borland. Let me get that a little plainer, please; the rate 
from Atlantic coast ports to Pacific coast ports is 40 cents? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes; by boats operating through the Panama Canal. 

Congressman Borland. And the rate from Kansas City to the Pacific Coast, 
is what? 

Mr. Dooley. Eighty cents, all rail. I might add to that, that the transcon¬ 
tinental lines, recognizing the force of that competition, have made applica¬ 
tion to the Interstate Commerce Commission to put in a 60-cent rate on soap 
from the Missouri River, and east, to meet that competition. Tliat permission 
has not been granted them as yet. I merely mention that to show that they 
themselves recognize the force of the Panama competition and see that it is 
necessary to take at least some steps to get it. I do not think that that relief, 
even if granted, will be adequate. 

Congressman Borland. You think that the competition by way of the Panama 
Canal will still be very serious for the transcontinental railroads? 

Mr. Dooley. Undoubtedly it will be very serious as more boats get into the 
service. At the present time they are operating under somewhat abnormal con¬ 
ditions. There are lots of boats in the Atlantic service which should be in 
the coast-to-coast service. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Bland is peculiarly familiar with this matter, 
and I want to ask him to conduct this examination. I started it without 
thinking that we had agreed that he would conduct it. 

Judge Bland. You say the railroads have applied for a 60-cent rate? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. In your opinion, Mr. Dooley, will that be an adequate re¬ 
duction? 

Mr. Dooley. I just said, in my opinion, it was not adequate. 

Judge Bland. And it has not even been secured as yet? 

Mr. Dooley. No, sir. 

Judge Bland. And if secured, and a reduction made to the 60-cent rate, there 
would be a 50 per cent differential against you? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. In favor of the ocean-to-ocean rate? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. And as a result of that, you would be compelled to abandon 
your Pacific coast trade, or absorb that differential? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes. 

Judge Bland. Or move to the Gulf coast or seaboard? 

Mr. Dooley. We would have to move to tidewater. 

Judge Bland. And the same condition applies to all soap manufacturers, 
enjoying trade throughout the United States, as you do, that arc located in the 
Mississippi Yalley ? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes; that is true. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 259 


Judge Bland. Your trade extends throughout the United States, does it not? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. And you have some export trade? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes, sir. 

Col. Newcomer. Do you figure that the improvement of the Missouri River 
would relieve you of that handicap? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes, to this extent: That it would give us an avenue for reaching 
tidewater which we do not now possess. 

Col. Newcomer. Do you think that you could beat the 40-cent rate from New 
York by going down the Missouri and the Mississippi Rivers and thence by 
ocean? 

Mr. Dooley. No; I do not say that, but it was shown at the hearing on the 
river, or the several hearings on the river referred to, that the boat lines reach 
out far into the interior for freight. For instance, they reach into interior Ohio 
points for freight for the Pacific coast, and that would indicate that they absorb 
a certain percentage of the business of the rail carriers to the seaboard, and 
even make a rate that would take the business in competition with an all-rail rate 
from the point of origin. If we could get an adequate rate to New Orleans, 
for instance, we would at least be in a position where we would be on a parity 
with numerous eastern manufacturers. 

Chairman Black. In other words, Mr. Dooley, you think that the rate of a 
manufacturer in Ohio, by rail to the Atlantic coast and then via the canal, 
would be about the same as your rate if you could go by water from here to New 
Orleans and then by water from New Orleans? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes, sir; I think so. There are no boats at present*billing from 
St. Louis, but the last time they quoted the same rate from New Orleans to the 
Pacific coast that they are quoting from New York to the Pacific coast. So, for 
that reason, I say that if we had an adequate rate from here we would be in 
the same position as eastern manufacturers. 

Judge Bland. It has been stated here that a 28-hour service or schedule 
could be maintained down the river to St. Louis, on an improved channel. Of 
course the consumption of fuel going down the river is much less than propelling 
up the river, with the current to assist the machinery of the boat. Now, the 
extent of your relief would be the extent of the reduction of the rate that could 
be offered you by the navigation company operating boats, would it not? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes. 

Judge Bland. And that would be left to the boat line company to reduce that 
rate to meet the conditions? 

Mr. Dooley. Yes, sir. 

(Witness excused.) 

C. D. Parker, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressmen Borland. State your name, please. 

Mr. Parker. C. D. Parker. 

Congressman Borland. And your business, Mr. Parker? 

Mr. Parker. Vice president of the United States Water & Steam Supply Co. 

Congressman Borland. What is the line of your goods? 

Mr. Parker. It is steam fittings and plumbers’ supplies, all kinds of enamel 
ware, bathtubs, lavatories, kitchen sinks, and all that kind of enamel ware. 

Congressman Borland. Are you jobbers and wholesalers of that class of 
goods? 

Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. What use have you made of the river in transporting 
your line of goods? 

Mr. Parker. It is my understanding, from our freight man, that we made the 
initial shipment in our line. 

I want to explain to the board that our line is of such a character that a 
little chip off of an enamel tub ruins the tub. There is no such thing as 
partial damage at all; it is beyond redemption when it is chipped. Therefore, 
we were very careful about starting in to use the boat line at first, and our 
first shipment in 1914 was a very small amount; it was 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 tons, 
and Mr. Poland kept after us and finally an arrangement was made so that 
we could get terminal service of reloading our stuff at the dock and shipping 
it around by cars on the belt line, and in the last year, 1915, up to the present 
time, we have, as- I understand it from our freight man, handled about 100 
tons, or very close to it, and he tells me this morning that there will be quite 


260 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


a large amount for the balance of the year shipped in, and next year we will 
more than double our this year’s business, and that the service of the boat line 
has been perfectly satisfactory, and we have had less damaged goods than we 
ever have had on the same amount of goods shipped before. I think Mr. Burk¬ 
hart testified last night in regard to that matter. He said, I think, that they 
had claims for two tubs. We have not had any claims against them. 

Congressman Borland. You are just practically beginning, then, your use of 
the river? 

Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. So in 1913 you were not using the boat line? 

Mr. Parker. No ; and not in 1914. We have always stood back, and while we 
are subscribers to the boat line, from a public-spirited standpoint, realizing 
that it was our only salvation to have the river. At the same time we did not 
feel that we could avail ourselves of the 20 per cent saving we could have 
made in shipping our goods by the river. I am only in hope that they will get 
so they can handle our pipe. 

I want to explain that to you. Pipe is a sort of bulky freight, too, and if 
you tumble it around too much you break up the threads and all that kind of 
thing, and that is a matter yet to be figured on and worked out. They are 
handling our fittings. 

The principal points of shipment have been Louisville, Detroit, and St. 
Louis so far. 

Congressman Borland. So, that if the boat line is to be favored as a trans¬ 
portation line, it has to convince the merchants that it can adapt its line to 
their business? 

Mr. Parker. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. And that is a matter of comparatively slow growth? 

Mr. Parker. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. The business men must be convinced that it is a per¬ 
manent factor and equipped with facilities to handle their lines of goods? 

Mr. Parker. Yes; and the business men must be able to get insurance. 

I want to state here that we were in the first boat line that started, and we 
have three carloads of pipe in the bottom of the river on account of snags and 
bad condition of the river, and that made us scary and we have not taken hold 
of it from the standpoint of shipping as we expect to now. 

I want to say that service with all of us is a very important factor. It is my 
understanding that so far as the shipments have gone, we are about four days 
late, we will say, anywhere from two to four days late, that is the longer time 
by river than by rail. We anticipate that in our orders and that is all right; 
but if they get stuck on a sand bar down here two weeks, we can not use it; 
neither can anyone else. So, as the sand bars and snags disappear, the oppor¬ 
tunities to use the river increase. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Parker, with a regular schedule of the boat line 
and a permanently improved channel and reasonably prompt delivery, how 
much, if any, can your tonnage be increased? 

Mr. Parker. I have just made the statement awhile ago that it would be more 
than doubled this coming year. 

Congressman Borland. More than doubled this coming year? 

Mr. Parker. Yes, sir. I should say that we would ship anywhere around 
400 to 500 tons this coming year. 

Congressman Borland. And what you say of your business is typical of the 
plumbing-supply business in this market? 

Mr. Parker. Yes; and I want the board to understand that our goods, I do 
not believe that there are any goods more delicate to handle. It does not look 
that way because they are iron. You take our friend Bland here of the McPike 
Drug Co., and if he has a few bottles of drugs broken in a box the rest of the 
package is good, but our package, if it is hurt at all, is hurt irreparably and we 
would get nothing out of it. I have seen on the Pacific coast a carload of tubs 
and sinks broken up with a sledge hammer and they would not let them go on 
the market at all in the interest of their reputation as manufacturers; they 
could not afford to; so they broke them up and sold them for old iron. 

Congressman Borland. But even with that class of goods you have had satis¬ 
factory results? 

Mr. Parker. Yes, sir; we have not had one claim against the company so 
far. We are very much interested in it. 

I want to say here that I lived on the Mississippi River as a boy and saw the 
ups and downs of shipping on the Mississippi River. I saw it in its palmy days 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 261 


with elevators on the water side for the receipt of grain and towboats with 
large barges of wheat coining down the river for delivery to these elevators and 
for shipment on into Chicago. And that thing went along until they paralleled 
the river with two railroads, and then they whipsawed them; in the summer 
the rates would go down on the railroads and in the winter they would go up. 
Whenever the river was frozen up they would charge excessive rates and when 
it was open they would give them a lower rate again. So they whipsawed the 
boat line, even Diamond Joe with his millions, by manipulating the rates in 
that way. But that thing is changed now, and my understanding is that the 
railroads can not do that any more, but that when they make a rate they have 
to stick to it. And that is our reason for believing this boat line would be a 
success and the subscription of our company, while not large, was made with 
the idea that this thing was a permanent proposition, or could be made perma¬ 
nent. 

Congressman Borland. Has the board any further questions? 

That is all, Mr. Parker. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Bland wants to recall Mr. Dickey. 

Walter S. Dickey, recalled, testified further as follows: 

Judge Bland. You are the Walter S. Dickey who was before the board yes¬ 
terday ? 

Mr. Dickey. Yes, sir. 

Judge Bland. You are president of the Kansas City, Missouri River Naviga¬ 
tion Co.? 

Mr. Dickey. Yes. 

Judge Bland. Mr. Dickey, the question has arisen as to the influence of 
oeean-to-ocean rates via the Panama Canal as being against the products of 
the manufacturers in this territory. I will ask you, Mr. Dickey, whether the 
cost of operating the boats downstream is less than the cost of propelling them 
upstream between here and St. Louis? 

Mr. Dickey. Yes, the cost of operating the boats downstream is very much 
less than upstream, and we can afford to move freight at a less rate when we 
are going downstream. 

Judge Bland. Have you had any discussion about or given any considera¬ 
tion to the question of making the downstream rate separate and independent 
of the upstream rate? 

Mr. Dickey. We have, in the privacy of our little organization, at the naviga¬ 
tion office all of last season. We gave very serious consideration to the ques¬ 
tion of reducing the downstream rate to increase the tonnage. Our boats early 
last year were running light downstream and loaded upstream every trip, and 
we hesitated, of course, about going beyond a reduction of 20 per cent on 
freight below the rail rate, absorbing the switching charges at both ends, but 
we nevertheless wanted to load the downstream boats, and we had’ in consid¬ 
eration that plan when we found that it would not be necessary and that we 
could get loads downstream, principally of grain and grain products. 

Judge Bland. In operating upon an improved channel and in conflict with the 
rate that may be made from ocean to ocean via the Panama Canal, what re¬ 
duction do you think could he made by the boat-line company, operating to its 
full capacity with full equipment, upon an improved river, in the downstream 
rate as against the upstream rate? 

Mr. Dickey. I would not think it would he at all out of reason to say to this 
board and to the business interests of this city that with an improved channel 
and our increased equipment, as we have provided, we could cut the down¬ 
stream rail rate in two and maintain it profitably. The rate between Kansas 
City and St. Louis, that 300-mile stretch across the State of Missouri, is un¬ 
usually high by rail, and it would still yield us a very satisfactory rate on an 
improved river with enlarged equipment and full loads downstream even if we 
cut the rail rate in two. 

Senator Reed. Is there any doubt about your having full loads downstream 
at such a rate as that? 

Mr. Dickey. Absolutely none, if we had three times the equipment we now 
have. 

Senator Reed. I want to ask you if there is not a practically unlimited, that 
is, for all practical purposes unlimited supply of grain, meats, farm products 
of various kinds, as well as manufactured products to be carried to the East 
from Kansas City? 


262 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Mr. Dickey. Yes, sir; it is practically unlimited and is simply enormous. 
Uhtil you get into it and begin to calculate it you can hardly appreciate it. As 
a matter of fact, we have never hauled meat, but the grain products—flour, 
bran, alfalfa, and alfalfa meal—come to us in straight barge loads. And that 
is the business that every day the six or seven rail lines that run from here 
to St. Louis carry. We have had but a small proportion of that. 

Senator Reed. Is there not enough of that business in the counties of Missouri 
that touch the river to keep not only your boat line but two or three boat lines 
busy ? 

Mr. Dickey. There certainly is, and the 20 counties bordering upon the Mis¬ 
souri River, when we can give them a dependable, regular service, will more 
than supply the present line without the terminal freights offered not only 
in those products but the bulky commodities, the stuff that fills the hills, such 
as clay, coal, silica sand, cement rock, which would be available on the w T ay 
downstream. 

Senator Reed. Are you familiar, in a general way, with the character of those 
counties as to population and agriculture which touch the Missouri River through 
the State of Missouri? 

Mr. Dickey. I am in a general way. 

Senator Reed. Is it not a fact that they constitute as rich a territory in agri¬ 
cultural products as anywhere in the United States? 

Mr. Dickey. -I think they do, and my business takes me all over the United 
States. These 20 counties bordering on this Missouri River, this board will 
readily appreciate, were the ones first settled when the State of Missouri was 
opened for settlement, prior to statehood, and were settled with pioneers from 
Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, who built and made the first settlement in 
Missouri. They came to those counties, and they are the richest counties in 
the State in that respect and in the West to-day in my judgment. 

Senator Reed. And are not the natural advantages of the land, in your 
judgment, equal to any similar territory in extent that can be found anywhere 
in the United States? 

Mr. Dickey. That is true, and I say it with knowledge of the various parts 
of the United States. If these banks were revetted and fixed and the shore 
line established so that our citizens could dike and levee in behind them with 
immunity and with certainty that their levees would not be destroyed, that 
valley would be ablaze with farming industry all the way from here to St. 
I.ou is. 

Senator Reed. I am not speaking entirely of the Missouri River Valley and 
that part which sometimes overflows, but I want my question to embrace the 
uplands of the counties as they are regardless of any protection against water. 

Mr. Dickey. I appreciate your point, and it is a fact that they are among 
the richest counties, not only the valley land, but the upland. But for miles 
the river sweeps the foot of the bluffs, and these gentlemen have recently been 
over it and are familiar with it. 

(Witness excused.) 

John W. McCoy, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Congressman Borland. State your name, please. 

Mr. McCoy. John W. McCoy. 

Congressman Borland. And what is your business connection? 

Mr. McCoy. I am traffic manager for William Volker, of Kansas City, and the 
Western Shade Cloth Co., of Chicago. 

Congressman Borland. You are traffic manager for William Volker, of Kansas 
City, and allied manufactories at other points? 

Mr. McCoy. Yes. 

Congressman Borland. Do you want to explain something in regard to rates 
from your own personal knowledge? 

Mr. McCoy. I would be glad to do so. 

Congressman Borland. I wish you would please explain that to the board. 

Mr. McCoy. I wish to explain with reference to this Panama Canal com¬ 
petition. 

Congressman Borland. You have been a railroad man, have you not? 

Mr. McCoy. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. How long has been your experience in railroading? 

Mr. McCoy. I was with railroad companies a little over 13 years, in the 
operating and in the traffic department. I was in the traffic department when I 
went to William Volker 12 years ago. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 263 

Congressman Borland. So you are familiar with rate making from the traffic 
end of the railroad, are you? 

Mr. McCoy. Well, yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. All right, proceed, Mr. McCoy; I just wanted to show 
that in the record. 

Mr. McCoy. About the time the American & Hawaiian Steamship Co. com¬ 
menced giving satisfactory service across the Tehuantepec Railroad Mr. Volker 
came to my desk and said, “ What do you suppose the rate will be on window 
shades when the Panama Canal is opened?” I said, “About what the rate is 
from Kansas City to St. Joseph to-day.” He said, “ What did you pay on the 
last car of linoleum from Dundee, Scotland, to Philadelphia?” I said, “21 
cents.” He said, “ I think the rate will be 25 cents from New York to San 
Francisco.” I said, “ That is the rate from Kansas City to St. .Toe.” 

In Chicago we have an investment of $2,000,000. We paid out t' ere last year 
for materials, labor, and selling expenses, $594,000. We paid into Chicago, on 
raw material, on 140 cars, 58.1 cents per 100 pounds from Fall River. Our main 
competition is in the Oswego district of New York. On the same commodities 
they pay from Fall River to Oswego 23.G cents. They pay back to New York 
the same rate, 23.6 cents. Last week we had a quotation from the steamship 
line from New York city to Seattle of 75 cents on window shades in quantities. 
At the present time, effective until yesterday, our rate from Chicago was $3 a 
hundred. 

Now, the rate on window shades from Oswego, N. Y., to all points south of 
Cairo, Ill., is as great as it is from Chicago to those points. The rate on window 
shades from Oswego, N. Y., to New Orleans is 70 cents. The rate from Chicago 
to New Orleans is $1.10, and that parity will spread out all over the South. 
Now, it resolves itself into this: If it is just the improvement of the Missouri 
River it would not do the central west much good, if it is just between St. Louis 
and Kansas City; but if it is carried out down the Mississippi River I am sure 
the competition will allow manufacturers in Chicago and Cincinnati to compete 
with those in seaboard territory. If relief is not given interior manufacturers, 
then the $594,000 we have expended in Chicago last year will be expended over 
in the seaboard territory; and if it affects a small industry like ours, it is going 
to affect every industry in the Mississippi Valley. 

Charman Black. You speak of the great necessity for having water transpor¬ 
tation down the Mississippi. I suppose you know that the facilities, as far as 
navigation is concerned, exist now, and if it is so very necessary for these manu¬ 
facturers, why is it that there is no water transportation between St.’Louis and 
New Orleans to speak of? Why, if that is so vitally necessary to manufacturers 
throughout the Mississippi Valiey, are there not properly conducted freight lines 
now by water? 

Mr. McCoy. Colonel, up until about 12 years ago the railroads did not collect 
more than 40 per cent or 60 per cent of the rates that were published, and that 
system allowed these manufactories to grow. No one paid the tariff. Since the 
Elkins bill and the recent interstate commerce regulation we pay the tariff. 
Before that, lots of these factories were built up on preferential rates. 

Senator Reed. Rebates? 

Mr. McCoy. Yes, rebates. 

Chairman Black. And yet I do not know of any movement on foot by manu¬ 
facturers to establish water transportation on the Mississippi where there is 
plenty of water. I know of no line on the Mississippi comparable with this line 
you have on the Missouri. 

Mr. McCoy. But if a comprehensive scheme of inland waterway improvements 
goes there will be other boat lines. 

Chairman Black. For the manufacturer at Chicago, the improvement, as far 
as the shipment of his goods to the Pacific coast is concerned, the improvement 
of the Missouri River between St. Louis and Kansas City would not be of any 
avail? 

Mr. McCoy. No, sir. 

Chairman Black. You spoke of the necessities of the manufacturers in the 
Mississippi Valley itself, and you made a very strong point that water trans¬ 
portation must be given, and yet there is no movement on the part of those 
manufacturers, as far as I am aware, toward the establishment of such water 
transportation, with the facilities right there. 

Senator Reed. Will you pardon an interruption? 

Chairman Black. Certainly. 


264 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

Senator Reed. There has been a movement on for years known as “ Fourteen 
feet from St. Louis to the Gulf.” They have encountered all sorts of obstacles 
and that movement is still on. I do not speak by the card, but my understanding 
is that there are bars in the Mississippi River that reduce the depths so that 
boats of the character necessary to operate from St.- Louis to the Gulf can not 
be run over those bars. 

Chairman Black. Senator, you are mistaken; there is at least 8 feet, and 
always has been, from St. Louis to New Orleans. 

Senator Reed. What they want is 14 feet. 

Chairman Black. They can get navigation plenty on the 8 feet; that has been 
shown. That has been the condition for a number of years, and no advantage 
has been taken of it, and it is questionable whether they could get any more 
advantage from the 14 feet than from the 8 feet for the character of navigation 
possible on the Mississippi River. 

Senator Reed. The business men of St. Louis think they will. 

Chairman Black. Yet they do nothing to avail themselves of this 8 feet. 

Senator Reed. They have no regular service such as is necessary, and business 
men seldom go into building boats against the railroads. However, we can take 
that up later. 

Mr. Goltra. Pardon me, but this is an important matter; will you allow me to 
interrupt the proceedings for a moment? v 

Chairman Black. Yes, sir. 

Edward F. Goltra testified further as follows: 

Mr. Goltra. By reason of the improvement of the Mississippi River betwen St. 
Louis and the mouth of the Ohio, St. Louis has, as I said last night, established 
a $2,000,000 coking plant. The only reason why that coking plant is there to-day 
is because we saw that we would be able to take the coking coal which comes 
from eastern Kentucky down the Ohio and up the Mississippi as a direct result of 
the improvement of that river, and within a very short time after we knew 
that we could depend upon that amount of water in that channel, a $2,000,000 
plant was started and is now completed and is in operation and desires to send 
its product, namely, coke, up the Missouri River by barge from St. Louis. 

Chairman Black. Yes, that has already been stated. 

Senator Reed. How about boats being now prepared to operate on that part 
of the river? 

Mr. Goltra. Jones & Laughlin, the largest independent steel and iron company 
in the country, is now building a large number of barges for the purpose of dis¬ 
tributing down the Ohio and down the Mississippi, and up the Mississippi cer¬ 
tainly as far as St. Louis, their fabricated steel products. A number of boats are 
already constructed to now utilize that very channel, but, Col. Black, and gentle¬ 
men, you must understand that business men will not take advantage of some¬ 
thing they think is going to materialize, they want to know that it is going to 
be a permanent thing before they will invest thousands and thousands of dollars 
in the business—in the boats necessary to take advantage of the river improve¬ 
ment. 

Senator Reed. Mr. Goltra, when was that channel established? How long has 
it been established? 

Mr. Goltra. I am not prepared to state, Senator, just when it was a demon¬ 
strated fact that we could depend upon G feet of water between St. Louis and 
Cairo, but it is a comparatively short time ago. The records will show when 
6 feet was positively to be maintained there at all times in the year. 

Judge Bland. Col. Black, may I incorporate a suggestion? 

Col. Newcomer. It is my understanding that that channel, at least 6 feet in 
depth, has been maintained the last 7 or 8 years. 

Mr. Goltra. I think it is about 5 years, but I am not positive, Col. Newcomer. 

I will also call your attention, gentlemen, to the fact that when they turned 
the water in from Lake Michigan, right away things improved tremendously and 
as a result of that they put in those large transfer boats just below Carondolet, 
below St. Louis. They were satisfied there was enough water there at all times 
of the year to warrant the expenditure of that large sum of money. 

Col. Newcomer. Let me ask you, Mr. Goltra, is your coal being brought by boat 
to your coking plant? 

Mr. Goltra. They have brought up fleets of coal, I think, 25,000 tons in a move¬ 
ment. 

Col. Newcomer. I mean, is it receiving all of its coal by river? 

Mr. Goltra. Not all of its coal. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 265 


Col. Newcomer. What proportion of its coal is it receiving by river? 

Mr. Goltea. That, I am sorry to say, I am not prepared to state, but the 
Laclede gas light people are contemplating putting in a steel barge line to bring 
in all of their coal by that means. 

Col. Winslow. Wliat arrangement have you for handling coal when it gets to 
St. Louis? 

Mr. Goltka. The Union Electric Light & Power Co. have established their 
plant on the river just above the Eads bridge, and when the barges are brought 
up there, by electric hoists they drop grab buckets into the barges and hoist it 
to the elevator above. 

Col. Winslow. Have you any such arrangement at your plant? 

Mr. Goltka. We are right on the river and the same method is contemplated 
for loading and unloading barges at that plant. 

Col. Winslow. But you have not put in the unloading plant as yet? 

Mr. Goltka. No, it has not materialized yet, but it is in course. 

Col. Winslow. There has been a great deal of evidence before the board to the 
effect that transportation from these interior cities down the river to New Or¬ 
leans is so important on account of the opening of the Panama Canal. Now, 
if the Kansas City people have been so enterprising as to establish this boat 
line and run it for years at a loss, why can not St. Louis operate a line down 
the Mississippi? 

Mr. Goltka. Not only would it pay, but St. Louis is considering that. And 
more than that, St. Louis is considering the establishment of a barge line and 
bringing coal north and taking ore south, and the Burlington has built a line 
across Illinois to get into the southern Illinois coal field. 

Mr. Hill appreciates the possibilities of the movement and they are now pre¬ 
pared to move 1,250 50-ton coal cars north every day in the year. And the move¬ 
ment of coal up the river and ore down the river, on account of the improved con¬ 
dition of the channel right at the mouth of the Missouri River, which has been a 
bugbear for a long time, owing to the water coming in now from Lake Michigan, 
is what makes that possible. 

Judge Bland. Col. Black, may I incorporate a suggestion? 

Chairman Black. Yes. 

W. T. Bland testified as follows: 

Judge Bland. The suggestion I wish to make is that the potential influence 
of the Mississippi River in rate making has existed during all these years. The 
rate for the distance of 1,127 miles from New York to St. Louis is 8S cents 
now; it was 87 cents. The rate across the State of Missouri, 281 miles, is 60 
cents, three-fourths of the rate when the distance is but one-fourth. This poten¬ 
tial influence has existed during the years and maintained that rate. There has 
been no great disparity between internal rates and the ocean-to-ocean rates until 
the completion of the" Panama Canal. And that very fact will compel-the use of 
the river by the manufacturers in the central part of the United States, includ¬ 
ing.St. Louis, so that they may compete, and that the extension of the operation 
of boats will be made from St. Louis down the Mississippi River we have not 
the slightest doubt, because necessity compels, and if that takes place it will 
be an important factor. 

Chairman Black. Mr. Poland gave us a most illuminating thought yesterday 
illustrating the elements that go to the success or failure of water transporta¬ 
tion. We know there are barges being built by a company for water transpor¬ 
tation on the lower Mississippi River, but on the showing made so conclusively 
by Mr. Poland last night that barge line promises to be as little a success as 
previous or existing lines. Now, that has nothing really to do with the Missouri 
River, but when the witnesses now before us speak of the necessities of the 
manufacturers for exactly the kind of barge lines that you have established 
here on the Missouri River between Kansas City and St. Louis 1 could not help 
but wonder why, in order to complete your work and continue this water trans¬ 
portation, a movement of the same kind is not on foot on down the Mississippi 
River. I have seen no evidence of it at all except the instances given by one 
or two industries for their own purposes making use of it, but that is not a 
general transportation plan. 

Judge Bland. These matters will of course develop slowly. Now, for example, 
Mr. Dickey is a very large manufacturer, the largest manufacturer of sewer pipe 
in the United States, and he has located six plants on water—on the Missouri, 
the Mississippi, and the Tennessee—near large coal production, and he has 


266 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

located those plants in contemplation of the use of the river and has invested 
many thousands of dollars of money. 

Mr. Mackie here is familiar with the situation as to what is done with the 
boat line, and if you will permit him at this point to make a statement it would 
fit in the record very nicely. 

Chairman Black. Have you finished with the witness? 

Congressman Borland. Will you finish, Mr. McCoy? 

John W. McCoy, recalled, testified further as follows: 

Mr. McCoy. I am satisfied there will be traffic on the river unless the project 
is killed and the people become discouraged. 

I want to say about the rates through the Panama Canal, that what steamers 
have put into New Orleans have asked the same rate as they do out of New 
York; but if there is any number of them going in there, that is likely not to 
be true. 

In the latter part of last July we had 50 tons of linoleum at Philadelphia to 
move to Seattle, and the railroad rate at that time was $1.10. The steamship 
company said they would take 60 per cent of whatever the rail rate was. When 
this steamer got ready to go back to Philadelphia from Seattle they began to 
look for tonnage, and we moved that freight from Seattle to Philadelphia at 35 
cents a hundred, and moved it in 34 days. If you are at New Orleans whenever 
vessels put in there, and you have tonnage to offer them, they will make a rate 
that will permit you to compete with the factories in the New England States. 

Well, they published—the other day they quoted 60 cents out of Philadelphia 
and they took shipments at 45 cents, the present rail rate being 75 cents on that 
commodity. And if we can get our manufactured products of the Mississippi 
Valley down to New Orleans we will have the world for a market. We are 
window-shade makers and jobbers of linoleum; we are not transportation 
people. Before we would hazard our money in transportation business it would 
be better for us to move our factory to New Jersey or Connecticut, where 
we would have the whole world for a market. And, by the way, the freight 
from Connecticut back to Chicago on our material, which is worth 2 cents a 
yard, is the same as it is on material worth $1 a yard—that is, the better grade 
of material. And when we pay 5S.1 cents for our muslin, that is a very low 
grade. We pay it back to New York. Of course, we have options on buying 
some of that material in the South, which we could move up the Tennessee 
River and into Chicago if the time comes when we can get that service. 

Col. Newcomer. I want to direct your attention to one point—about the ad¬ 
vantages of manufacturers at the seaboard. There is a certain amount of 
interior territory that is available to you for a market, is there not? 

Mr. McCoy. No, Colonel, not when the freight from that territory—from the 
manufacturing point back—is the same as we pay on our finished product. 
That would be the saving of freight if our factory was located in Connecticut 
to-day; we would be laying our manufactured product down at Chicago at prac¬ 
tically the same rate we pay on raw material. 

(Witness excused.) 

A. W. Mackie, recalled as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. The president asked the question why, if they have 
water in the Mississippi, the Mississippi is not used, and he seemed to have 
the impression that no attempt is being made to use it, and as fearing that a 
barge line now proposed—self-propelled barge that I think you referred to as 
being built on the Ohio River—does not promise very much success. What 
have you to say about that? 

Mr. Mackie. I do not care to go on record as to my judgment of what that 
barge line will do, but on behalf of our company I want to say that having 
explained to you the difficulties we went through in getting equipment and 
determining what to use has enabled us to give information, I think, of value 
to other people who are interested in inland water transportation; and only 
within the past five months have we been called on for actual data as to the 
cost of barges, where they could be built, the cost of towboats, the cost of 
operation of towboats. And we have been called in conference in St. Louis 
with regard to the building of the terminal, and those business men have been 
asking those serious questions, and to my mind that indicates that they are 
taking up the question of navigating the Mississippi. It is true and would 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 267 


have been true on the Missouri had somebody been giving out interviews as 
to what he was going to do with a certain kind of barge and how cheaply he 
was going to move freight without regard to its class and commodity, possibly 
even in the face of a necessity it would have been difficult to have raised a 
million dollars in Kansas City to put our boat line in service. And that attempt 
on the Mississippi and that line of talk on the Mississippi may have deterred 
the business men there from going into river transportation. But since the 
opening of the Panama Canal and since the Mississippi River’s potentiality is 
gradually disappearing, or they fear it is going to disappear, and since they 
are obliged to reach the seaboard, if St. Louis proposes to remain a manu¬ 
facturing city of any importance, it puts St. Louis somewhat in the position 
that we were in five years ago, and the necessity will undoubtedly, with the 
steps that have been already taken, create a line on the Mississippi; and I 
do not speak just at random on that, because we are vitally interested in a 
Mississippi River line, knowing that when freight can be moved to and from 
New Orleans and give us a connection out of St. Louis there will be a very 
great increase in the tonnage and in the service we can render to Kansas 
City, and we have kept very close tab on the matter and have known of all 
the attempts that have been made to use the river and know how foolish some 
of them were, and have attempted to aid our friends across the State by show¬ 
ing up from our experience the mistakes that would be made by following the 
lines proposed. But now they have asked for and have had the actual data 
based on what we have learned, and we feel very sanguine as to the early 
start on the Mississippi River of a towboat and barge line. 

Now, I would like to go just a little bit further and say that the operation 
of packet boats on the Mississippi River has always been an excuse to a certain 
class of men not to put up any money for river transportation. Their answer 
to every such request has always been, “ We have river transportation.” They 
are learning only now that it is not effective river transportation, and that 
before you can carry carload freight you must get away from the idea of 
port-to-port business. That is not of importance in the present day of economic 
development and the development of transportation; and those men who have 
always laid back on the boats that they have—well, we all know, of course, 
the steamboat story of “ What I am going to do with something entirely new 
and created in my own mind, and how cheaply I am going to haul freight,” 
and what effect it has had on giving the impression that it would not be a 
success on the Mississippi River. But the fact that we have had barges sail¬ 
ing into- and out of St. Louis all the time has begun to have its effect, and 
the necessities that confront St. Louis, we feel very sure, are going to result 
in their adopting the towboat-and-barge method of transportation with the 
idea of an exchange of barges moving from point of origin to or as nearly as 
possible to the point of destination. By that I mean that a line when organized 
should contemplate taking barges when we have New Orleans freight, through 
from St. Louis, where we will deliver the barge to the other boat line to be 
carried through to New Orleans without breaking bulk, and that they will 
bring our barges back from New Orleans with freight destined to Kansas City 
or Missouri River points without breaking bulk or transferring at St. Louis. 

Chairman Black. You understand, Mr. Mackie, that what I said was not 
at all a criticism, you know, of the system of self-propelled barges- 

Mr. Mackie (interrupting). I understand. 

Chairman Black (continuing).—But it was somewhat on the ground that 
the line of those barges as proposed, as far as I can make out, would not 
fulfill the other requisites which were named by Mr. Poland as essential for 
successful river transportation. 

Mr. Mackie. I understand that very well, and I thought it might be very 
well to give you the information we have and what we think is going to 
develop in the* Mississippi River. I appreciate it is not of as great value as 
it would be to tell you that there were barges operating down there now, 
but the necessity does create the service. It created it here between St. 
Louis and Kansas City, and very much the same conditions are developing 
down there, which we feel sure are going to create the service. And having 
already the nucelus of an inland water line wliich will connect with that, 
they won’t have to start at the bottom as we had to start. And we are very 
cheerfully giving all the time, actual data, and information to people who 
are seriously going into the question of river transportation, and we are glad 
to help them because it helps us. 


268 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

Chairman Black. It is very evident that the value of river transportation 
on the Missouri would be greatly enhanced were it possible to continue that 
transportation under the same favorable auspices to the seaport. 

Mr. Mackie. Yes, sir. 

Chairman Black. Is Kansas City itself making an effort to provide that? 

Mr. Mackie. Not with our own capital or our own equipment. We first 
want our own problem solved and our own tonnage developed by the Missouri 
River. We are not yet able to take care of the tonnage that does pass east 
and west in our territory alone. We are all acquainted with the big freight 
movement east and west in the United States and with our present capacity 
and our capacity as it will be developed in the immediate future we will 
not be more than able to take care of our business that is in sight; but we 
would delight in water connection at St. Louis because it would be of advan¬ 
tage to us and would give our customers a through water route from New 
Orleans and a through water rate to points down there, and we are also con¬ 
cerned in the same way in the development of the Illinois-Michigan Canal be¬ 
cause a great quantity of our freight comes from Chicago and moves from 
Chicago via East St. Louis by rail, and we could just as well have it move 
all the way from Chicago by water, having moved by lake into Chicago, and 
would give our customers out here a larger advantage in dollars and cents 
by reason of the differential rate. 

If we could get a connection above and a connection below St. Louis, and 
we feel very sure that the time is not very far in the future when we will, 
we will be better able to serve our people in Kansas City and in the West, 
and we know that service is the basis of all the success we may ever hope 
to obtain in transportation. 

Chairman Black. You mentioned there the possibility of carrying one of 
your barges through without change of bulk, New Orleans to Kansas City. 
Now, if your plant is not sufficient to handle your present tonnage you would 
have to increase the number of your barges if you were going to loan them 
to the other company, or would there be an exchange of movement? 

Mr. Mackie. I meant to give you the impression that we were trying to 
encourage the building of barges and the adoption of the towboat-and-barge 
idea in order to enable the transfer of barges, just like the exchange of rail¬ 
way cars, so that we could exchange them. 

Chairman Black. Like the railroad cars where you see them, regardless of 
ownership, scattered everywhere? 

Mr. Mackie. Yes. There is no reason why a Mississippi River barge should 
not be given us at St. Louis with freight for Kansas City and our barge given 
to the Mississippi line with freight for New Orleans. 

Chairman Black. Except that you have 6 feet proposed in the Missouri 
which is actually four, and you have 8 feet from St. Louis to Cairo, and 9 
feet from there below. Now, could these small barges, fitted to navigate 
on four feet of water at the present time afford to travel to New Orleans 
when the cargoes could go on a barge much better adapted to an 8 or 9 
foot channel? 

Mr. Mackie. These barges we have are designed for use on a 6-foot chan¬ 
nel and are being used on 4 and sometimes 3 now. There is no reason 
why a barge loaded 4 feet in the fall of the year, and we hope we will not 
always have to load for 4 feet, could not go into St. Louis and there have 
an additional 2 feet loaded on her; and coming back she could have St. Louis 
freight or Chicago freight or some other point that would be taken out and 
so lighten her draft. For instance, if a barge came from New Orleans loaded 
7 feet or 6 feet and conditions were such in the Missouri River that she could 
not come up on more than 4, part of that load might be transferred onto an¬ 
other barge. 

Chairman Black. I just wanted to bring the answers out. 

Mr. Mackie. Yes. That we have in mind. 

Senator Reed. I want to ask Mr. Dickey a question. 

(Witness excused.) 

Walter S. Dickey, recalled, further testified: 

Senator Reed. Mr. Dickey, you have been studying this transportation 
problem a long time. I wish you would tell the board what you know about 
the reasons for the disapperance of the boat lines from the Mississippi River. 

Mr. Dickey. Mr. President, as I stated yesterday, my business throws me in 
contact with transportation facilities of all kinds and we never can get 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 269 


enough of them or too many different kinds. And in answer to the Senator’s 
question about the lack of freight service on the Mississippi River, I have 
had occasion to investigate that and to study it and it is clear to me that 
the economic changes that have gone on in the transportation world have, in 
part, accounted for the disappearance of the boats from the Mississippi and 
the carrying of the merchandise by the railways. But there are other reasons, 
the principal one being the keen competition and the close, intense fight made 
upon the boats by the railway owners. I must confess if I had been an 
owner or interested in or the manager of a railway line I would have done 
exactly the same thing. 

For many years, without let or hindrance, the railways made rates parallel¬ 
ing the river at ruinously low figures, either openly or by midnight tariffs, con¬ 
cessions, or rebates. I know it, because I took them for years, 40, 50, 60 per 
cent discounts privately off the rail rates. And one by one those boat lines 
were driven out of business. The statute of limitations has run out on those 
offenses, gentlemen, and there is no merchant in the room who did not do the 
same thing, and that was the basis of the building up of. the industry and the 
jobbing trade of this city. Ask every one of them and they will tell you. 

A Voice in the Audience. And every other city. 

Mr. Dickey. Now, when we first started this navigation company we em¬ 
ployed a very distinguished and talented gentleman to assist us as engineer, 
Mr. Daniel Bontecou. Some of you gentlemen may know him. He was on 
a visit to New l T ork shortly after he was in our employ temporarily as con¬ 
sulting engineer and he met another old-time distinguished civil engineer, whose 
name I won’t mention just now, but may mention it if thought desirable, and 
they stopped and greeted each other, and this friend says, “ Why, I see you 
have gotten another river-navigation scheme going out in Kansas City.” “ Oh, 
yes; our business men are going to make use of the river for freighting pur¬ 
poses.” 

And this New York man smiled and said, “ Well, you know I was with the 
Illinois Central for 14 years, and my sole duty was to put a sidetrack into 
every place or yard or cotton-shipping point or port that looked like a carload 
of freight and drive those boats off the river. That was my duty.” Now, that 
was the duty of some of the best brains and the best paid talent among rail¬ 
road men where they paralleled the rivers; to put the boats out of business. 
They bought shares of stock in the companies operating the boats and finally 
got control and let the boats go to pieces, tied to their hawsers. I have seen 
them down there in that condition. They got complete control, bought the 
boats or bought some of their equipment, so as to lessen their efficiency, and by 
every known means there was in use in those days they drove the traffic away 
from the boats, those railways paralleling the rivers, and the rivers gradually 
fell jiito disuse. The owners of the boats were rich and affluent in the olden 
days and they did not see far enough in the future. They did not have their 
lines coupled up together and capitalized, and little by little they were just 
pinched out. Now, it is somewhat of a superhuman task to get the boats back 
on that river, and we never could have done it except for the present laws, 
which prevent rebating and which, I am pleased to say as a shipper, are 
enforced, so far as I know, and no effort made to break them. 

Senator Reed. Now, Mr. Dickey, there has been a good deal of comment on 
the fact that there is no considerable traffic on the Mississippi River. 

Mr. Dickey. That is what I have been referring to. 

Senator Reed. And their failure is held up—not here, but it has been gen¬ 
erally held up. How about the Ohio River? 

Mr. Dickey. I can only speak in general. I think these gentlemen know 
more about the tonnage on the Ohio than I do. It is not as big there as it 
might be, but there is some constant movement of business there, and par¬ 
ticularly with regard to coal. And the Ohio has had many millions of dollars 
spent upon it and is practically slack-water navigation; no current to contend 
with and no bad places. 

Senator Reed. Another question, Mr. Dickey: Where have you factories lo¬ 
cated and in what parts of the country? 

Mr. Dickey. Well, as a producer of a bulky commodity we found it necessary 
to scatter our production, because if we ship very far the freight is as much as 
the value of the goods. We manufacture burned-clay products on the Pacific 
coast, on the Bay of San Francisco; and we make them at Kansas City, on the 
Missouri River; and we make them at two points on the Tennessee River, 
where our plants are right on the bank of the river and we can load the goods 


270 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


directly into the barges there; and we have acquired a plant site with clays and 
coals in the valley of the Alabama to make use of that improved water system 
there when the last canal was completed this last season, because the raw mate¬ 
rial in our line is inland. It is not upon the Atlantic or the Pacific or the Gulf 
coast—particularly not upon the Gulf coast—the clays and coals, the available 
materials. 

Senator Reed. Without going into detail, you are the largest manufacturer of 
clay products in the United States? 

Mr. Dickey. That I can not answer. I don’t know that. 

Senator Reed. Well, you are a very large manufacturer and you have your 
plants scattered. Has that led you to study closely the question of the effect of 
the Panama Canal on freight rates in Missouri and the Mississippi Valley? 

Mr. Dickey. It certainly has. 

Senator Reed. Will you tell the board what conclusion you have come to? 

Mr. Dickey. I think it has been made so clear here to this board, and cer¬ 
tainly it is clear to those of us in the merchandising and manufacturing busi¬ 
ness in this country, as to the effect of the Panama Canal that it seems per¬ 
haps futile to go over it again; but, briefly, with the shortened time and re¬ 
duced freight rates, both from the Atlantic coast and the Gulf coast to the 
Pacific coast, and vice versa, it is very clear that the merchants and manufac¬ 
turers who have had a flourishing and expanding business in the valley of the 
Mississippi and of its tributaries are going to be outstripped and will be con¬ 
fined and reduced to a purely local business unless this system of inland water¬ 
ways is improved and put to use in moving freights. I fail to see how our 
country can get the benefit of the Panama Canal that was contemplated and 
hoped for unless we use our great inland waterways to freight many lines of 
commodities to the sea and thereby go through the canal into the Pacific. 

Senator Reed. Unless you want to add something, or the board desires to 
ask something, that was all I desired to bring out, because I know the board 
wants to bring these hearings to a close. 

(Witness excused.) 

Mr. L. M. Kennedy. Mr. President, with the consent of the board and counsel, 
I would like to add a few words on this point. I was a member of the Fifty- 
ninth Congress, which enacted the law prohibiting rebates on railroad freight 
rates and business. I voted for that law and was, of course, more or less 
familiar with the discussions in connection with it. During that same Congress 
I had an interview with the chairman of the Rivers and Harbors Committee of 
the House at a time when we were asking more liberal appropriations for the 
Missouri River, and Mr. Burton put to me and his committee exactly the ques¬ 
tion which you put to the witness a few moments ago. He said, “ If river 
transportation is so important, why is it that the tonnage on the Mississippi 
River has constantly decreased?” I said, “Mr. Burton, to me. from the inves¬ 
tigation that I have made, the answer is plain. The shipping was rebated off 
the Mississippi River. The railroads not only met the river rates but they cut 
under them, and they were not so much interested in getting low rates or high 
rates as they were interested in getting lower rates and better rates than their 
competitors, and they went to the large shippers and they made it an object to 
them to abandon the boats—to abandon the river transportation and ship by 
rail—and when the railroads had rebated the large shipper off the river trans¬ 
portation line they had ruined the boat transportation on the river.” 

Now, you can destroy almost anything in a day that takes years to build 
up, but you can not immediately rebuild it. And that business will never be 
rebuilt until the business men of this valley and this community know that 
there is to be no backward steps in the improvement of the rivers and harbors 
of the country. And just as soon as you say to the people of the country—the 
business men with the money—that you are going to stand behind this improve¬ 
ment and go through with it. you will have transportation and you will have 
shipping on the Mississippi River, and you will have shipping on" the Missouri 
River, too. [Applause.] 

Chairman Black. Didn’t you make a mistake, in view of your official posi¬ 
tion? Should you not have said “ we ” instead of “ you ”? We have nothing to 
do with that. 

Mr. Kennedy. I beg your pardon. 

Senator Reed. He had you in mind, gentlemen, as the Government, quite 
properly. [Laughter and applause.] 

Mr. Kennedy. Mr. President, the people of this country look to the engineer¬ 
ing department of this Government as a body of well-qualified men to deal with 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 271 


these questions, and that is especially true since the Government built the 
Panama Canal with Government engineers. And your attitude on this question 
will be almost decisive. And that is why I say “ you,” but I mean more than 
you; I mean the great Government which you represent. 

I want to add one other thing, Mr. President. Mr. Burton said to me then 
that that was the best answer that he had had to that inquiry and he thought 
so well of it that he said, “ Mr. Kennedy, if you want an opportunity to put 
that in the Record when this bill comes on the floor of the House, I will give you 
the opportunity,” and he did give it to me, and it is in the Record just as I 
have stated. 

Chairman Black. Mr. Kennedy, you know yourself that this opposition—I 
won’t put it that way—you know that in a large part of the country the action 
by the Senator whom you mentioned, of two years ago, has been greatly ap¬ 
plauded. You know that that applause has been based, to a very large extent, 
on the nonuse of the rivers on which money has been spent. 

Mr. Kennedy. Yes, sir. Mr. Burton said to me then that the way to navi¬ 
gate the rivers of the country and to make them navigable was to proceed to use 
them. I said, “ That is putting the cart before the horse, but it is the rule that 
you lay down, and I am sure that the people of the West will use the rivers so 
far as it is practicable to use them.” But suppose that you had raised this same 
question in regard to the Union Pacific Railroad when it was 9 per cent con¬ 
structed? Do you think you would ever have finished it? After you had built 
the Union Pacific Railroad 9 per cent if you had said. “ Lo, and behold, you 
have got to develop traffic sufficient to warrant the completion of this railroad,” 
would you have gotten any results? 

Chairman Black. I must object to the number that you use, sir—the personal 
pronoun. 

Mr. Kennedy. I beg your pardon, but I do like, Mr. President, to make 
whatever remarks I do give you pointed, and I am looking at you now. 

Chairman Black. We, as a board—or we, as engineers—have made no objec¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Kennedy. Not only in my judgment should this report of Col. Deakyne 
be disapproved, but the next Congress should strike out that section 14 entirely 
or so modify it that the public will know that this is not going to be reexamined 
and not going to be questioned again. Now, I say that it is definiteness that we 
want, and if the Government will only make it plain that this money is going 
to be spent, Omaha will follow the example of Kansas City and St. Louis will, 
too, and we will have river transportation of all kinds and will build up this 
central part of the country. 

Mr. Dickey. We had their promise when we spent ours, you know. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Will Mr. Hardenbergh come forward? 


C. M. Hardenbergh, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland.- Mr. President, the essence of this hearing is that the 
Missouri River people have actually used their river, and have found a prac¬ 
ticable and profitable way of using it, and we believe that that is solving the 
question of river navigation. We realize that the question of whether freight 
rates at particular points, as, for instance. St. Louis, have been in the past poten¬ 
tially controlled by the river—as long as they have been potentially controlled 
there is no inducement to go through all the work we have gone through in 
establishing the boat line; but we believe the time is coming now when rates 
are not potentially controlled by the mere existence of the river, and we are 
basing this upon the fact that we have found a practicable method of using the 
river transportation. That is the essence of the testimony that we are now intro¬ 
ducing, and we think this testimony, whatever it may have been, goes to the 
Mississippi and will apply to the Mississippi under the conditions of the imme- 


(li< Now U Mr. Hardenbergh, you are the manager of the Southwest Milling Co.? 

Mr. Hardenbergh. I am; yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. That is a very large flour mill? 

Mr Hardenbergh. We are the largest mill in the city. 

Congressman Borland. Now, there is a statement beginning on page 114 of 
the brief that is there on the table, and I want you to tell the board to what 
extent you have used the river during the nine months of the present year 
of 1915* and I want you to tell the board how much you have used it in 1914 
and 1913, and show the increase in your traffic in those two seasons. 


272 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

Mr. Hardenbergh. During the season of 1914 we used the river not at all. Our 
business was solicited, but we did not use it. We were a little bit skeptical, to 
he frank with you. Last spring—the spring of 1915—business was solicited 
again, and we went into the matter very thoroughly—the matter of insurance, 
etc., loss and damage, that was all entered into. As to those matters, we had 
been a little skeptical before, and we started in and found the business very 
satisfactory, and we shipped about 4,000 tons. We offered the boat line more, 
and they could not take it. They did not have the space. We were about the 
first mill to start to use it, and as soon as we started to use it everybody else 
wanted to use it, and they got filled up, and they had to turn us down. 

Now, 4,000 tons is a drop in the bucket. Our business is such that the flour 
which we manufacture goes largely to the eastern territory. The Western States, 
as you know, grow considerably more wheat than the local consumption calls 
for, and it has to go somewhere, and it goes east because the consumption is 
east rather than west. And figuring out the total amount of tonnage which is 
available or which goes into the territory east of St. Louis, including Chicago, 
and for export through New Orleans or Mobile, after deducting the amount of 
tonnage which we ship during the four months of the year when the river might 
be closed, and after making a deduction of about 20 per cent of the remaining 
tonnage which would probably have to move all rail for various reasons, some of 
it because quick shipment would be desired or because the shippers on first 
impression might object to the transportation—after making all those deduc¬ 
tions we had for the past year 37,000 tons which was available for shipment 
via river if the river could give us the facilities to handle it. That is the figure 
of only one mill here in Kansas City. Now, our mill has the capacity of about 
3,400 barrels a day. The milling capacity of Kansas City is pretty close to 12,000 
barrels a day. 

Congressman Borland. Your mill is about 3,500 and the milling capacity of 
Kansas City about 12,000? 

Mr. Hardenbergh. Approximately 12.000. I think it is 11,900. 

Congressman Borland. You are a little more than one-fourth of the total mill¬ 
ing capacity of Kansas City? 

Mr. Hardenbergh. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And for your mill alone there is available for trans¬ 
portation by river 37.000 tons? 

Mr. Hardenbergh. Easily. 

Congressman Borland. Easily 37,000 tons? 

Mr. Hardenbergh. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Now, in addition to your flour you have a certain ton- 
nage of by-products, haven’t you? 

Mr. Hardenbergh. That includes the by-products. I have taken the total 
tonnage which would move into that territory—both flour and feed. 

Congressman Borland. Now, this city, as a flour center, embraces the mills of 
Kansas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and western Missouri, and there are a number of 
other flouring mills in this section aside from Kansas City that must base 
their rates on the Missouri River rates, aren’t there? 

Mr. Hardenbergh. Well, practically all the mills of western Kansas—in 
Kansas and Oklahoma—which ship their products east of Kansas City have to 
base their rates on Kansas City. The rate breaks here at Kansas City for the 
movement east, and they all base on it. 

Congressman Borland. Now, none of this business went to the boat line in 
1914 or 1913? 

Mr. Hardenbergh. Not a pound of it. 

Congressman Borland. And when it began to be developed that you could ship 
by the river, you found that the facilities of the boat line were not adequate to 
the amount of freight you could offer? 

Mr. Hardenbergh. Were not nearly adequate. As soon as we started to ship 
we had some shipments we had lined up to go and found that we were not quick 
enough. Topeka got in ahead of us. They were the first mill to follow us, 
and they shut us right out. 

Congressman Borland. Any questions from the members of the board? This 
represents the milling situation, and that is the reason why I do not duplicate 
that testimony with that of other millers. The situation here is that equally of 
the milling business generally, and of course that is the great surplus product of 
the Western States. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Now, Mr. Carlisle. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 273 


Charles D. Carlisle, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. You are president of the Carlisle Commission Co.? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. You are a hay dealer? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. I think some one told me you were the largest hay 
dealer in the United States, and you have denied that; but at any rate, you are 
very extensive hay dealers? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And Kansas City at present is the great hay market 
of the country? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir; largest in the world. 

Congressman Borland. Greatest hay market in the world? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. What use have you been able to make of the river 
transportation of that commodity, hay? 

Mr. Carlisle. On several occasions I have been endeavoring to give the boat 
line business, but never could get in. There was more freight than they could 
take care of. 

Congressman Borland. 1 will call your attention to page 109 of this brief. 
Now, you may continue your testimony, Mr. Carlisle. You have shipped by 
river? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes. Your board are perhaps aware that Kansas City is located 
in the richest agricultural district of the country and produces more hay than 
any other section of the country, and another interesting fact is that of the 
increased number of silos. Secretary Mohler, of Kansas, in his last report, 
gave over 9,000 silos in Kansas. This, of course, makes more hay for commercial 
purposes. Kansas City last year handled 40,000 cars of hay. which is about a 
half million tons. I feel safe in saying that with an improved river and a de¬ 
pendable schedule we could offer at least 5,000 cars for the boat line, which is 
about 60,000 tons of freight. Hay is a commodity that can be loaded easily the 
same as sack stuff, with endless chains, and it can be also recompressed to a 
greater density. The commercial baling is about 130 cubic feet to the ton; but 
on a Philippine contract that I had three years ago I recompressed the hay to 
the density of 75 to 80 cubic feet to the ton, which is in conformity with Govern¬ 
ment requirements. This, to be recompressed, would be right valuable freight. 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Carlisle, you had a Panama Canal contract? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes; we are completing now the third contract. 

Congressman Borland. The third contract to supply the Panama Canal with 
hay ? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. Now, the condition down there is that they have a dry 
season some seven months in the year? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. That gives them nothing but their unnutritive wire 
grass, and the animals taken down there for construction work must be fed with 
hay from this country; and that is the condition down all along in these semi- 
tropical countries? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. That hay is the upland hay of Missouri and Kansas? 

Mr. Carlisle. Our present contract is alfalfa. 

Congressman Borland. One contract that you had was filled with upland 
prairie hay—Kansas upland prairie hay—that is, prairie hay from Missouri, 
Kansas, and Colorado? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And alfalfa? 

Mr. Carlisle. It was Kansas, Colorado, and Oklahoma. 

Congressman Borland. Now, all those countries down there where large work 
animals are used must draw their supply of hay from the Missouri Valley, 
practically? 

Mr. Carlisle. Well, I will say that when the bids were opened in June, had 
California been offered sufficient boats, I would not have gotten the contract. 
Since the opening of the canal California is our main competitor. 

Now, as to alfalfa, Kansas has an acreage of 1,359,000 acres, Colorado about 
900,000 acres, and Nebraska 1,200,000 acres of alfalfa. It is increasing very 
fast, and the rate from Kansas City to New York is 50 cents a hundred. The 

H. Doc. 463, 64-1-18 



274 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

rate from San Francisco by way of canal is 50 cents a hundred. So that Colo¬ 
rado, Kansas, and Oklahoma, have a rate from 60 to 72£ cents as against 50 
cents from California, or the rate which San Francisco has to all Atlantic coast 
ports up as far as Boston. 

Congressman Borland. You are aware, of course, that the Government irriga¬ 
tion projects in the West usually begin with the growth of alfalfa? That is 
the principal crop to start their settlers off in business? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. And the Indian reservations are largely engaged in 
the raising of hay? 

Mr. Carlisle. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. That is a commodity that they have- 

Mr. Carlisle (interrupting). We draw from Montana and Wyoming. We 
draw from seven or eight different States and get a good deal from the In¬ 
dian reservations up in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho, and so on. 

Congressman Borland. That is all, Mr. Carlisle. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Fitch, I want to get your testimony in now. 

H. A. Fitch, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. Mr. Fitch, you are manager of the Kansas City 
Structural Steel Co.? 

Mr. Fitch. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. President, I should say. 

Mr. Fitch. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. You make structural steel here at your plant in 
Kansas City? 

Mr. Fitch. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. To what extent have you been permitted to use the 
boat line? 

Mr. Fitch. We have been unable to use the boat line—practically none at 
all—three or four carloads, perhaps. 

Congressman Borland. Three or four carloads you would call none at all? 

Mr. Fitch. No. 

Congressman Borland. Now, you have a pretty bulky commodity? 

Mr. Fitch. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. What facilities are needed for you to use the boat 
line? 

Mr. Fitch. The most of our products are in long lengths and the boat line 
has not been able to handle the long-length pieces up to the present time. I 
understand they will be able next year. 

Congressman Borland. The equipment of the boat line during the present 
season has not been sufficient to handle your long-lengtli stuff? 

Mr. Fitch. That is correct. 

Congressman Borland. And you understand they are going to provide equip¬ 
ment of that kind? 

Mr. Fitch. They have provided the equipment, I understand. 

Congressman Borland. So you will be able, then, to offer them freight and 
they will be able to accept it with their increased equipment? 

Mr. Fitch. Yes, sir. 

Congressman Borland. How much tonnage moves from your company? 

Mr. Fitch. Our entire movement of tonnage is from the East here. We never 
move tonnage back East. It always comes from the East and all of our raw 
material comes from the East through Chicago or Pittsburgh, and it amounts 
to an average of about 20,000 tons a year. Now, only a portion of that can be 
shipped via the boat line because we ship on through rates, working in transit 
rates, and perhaps 60 or 75 per cent would have to be still shipped over the 
railroads in order that we could take advantage of the working in transit rate, 
and therefore we would not have but, oh, approximately from three to five 
thousand tons that we would ship by the boat line. 

Mr. Sangster. Mr. Fitch, may I ask you in the way of a question—the milling 
in transit you refer to is the fabrication in transit of the steel? 

Mr. Fitch. That is correct. 

Mr. Sangster. And the rate adjustment is such now that you move it from 
the point of origin where the raw material is manufactured to Kansas City and 
fabricate it here and manufacture it and send it to destination at the through 



MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 275 


rate from the point of origin to destination plus certain charges for the privilege 
of fabrication in transit, perhaps cents a 100 pounds? 

Mr. Fitch. Yes. 

Mr. Sangster. Now, I understand the boat line is prepared to enter into ar¬ 
rangements with the railways so that the same arrangement for fabrication 
here may be made, so that the same privilege and basis may prevail? 

Mr. Fitch. Well, I don’t know that. 

Mr. Sangster. Well, if that should he the case, then that objection or disa¬ 
bility will disappear? 

Mr. Fitch. Yes, sir; and in view of that I might say that the big bulk of our 
tonnage would move that way. 

Congressman Borland. If an arrangement could be made for the boat line 
to give a fabrication-in-transit rate? 

Mr. Fitch. In connection with the railways? 

Congressman Borland. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Fitch. Yes, sir. 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. I will now ask Mr. von Pagenhardt, the naval archi¬ 
tect of the Missouri River Navigation Co., to take the stand. 

I want to call the boat company’s engineer, Mr. von Pagenhardt, who is a 
naval architect and can give us information upon some of the technical matters 
as to construction and operation of these boats. Mr. von Pagenhardt, will you 
come forward, please. 

Maximilian von Pagenhardt, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. The board here are interested somewhat in the de¬ 
tails of the construction of that boat, and I want to ask you first as to your 
experience and qualifications as a naval architect. 

Mr. von Pagenhardt. I am a graduate of the University of Berlin and have 
had practical experience in the shipyards of Germany and England, and I came 
over to this country in 1910. I have studied some in the shipyards on the 
Great Lakes, and came to St. Louis in the fall of 1910 and worked for Mr. 
Cavanaugh in connection with the barge line which he proposed to establish. 
This line materialized in some measure in the spring of 1911, and was dis¬ 
continued in the fall of the same year. In the spring of 1912 I connected myself 
with the Kansas City boat line—the only boat line just at present—and am 
here ever since. [Laughter.] 

We have kept a record ever since the beginning of navigation of 1913 of 
every trip that every boat has made at all times. We know exactly how many 
hours each boat has been delayed each trip, and for what reason, and we have 
determined the saving in time in each succeeding half year compared with the 
like time of the year before. These records have enabled us to know all the 
time where our losses have occurred. Charts of this kind which I have in my 
hand have been made for each boat and kept at all seasons. This represents 
the low-water season of 1914, for instance, of the steamer A. M. Scott, starting 
with July 1 and ending with December 11. It just so happened, due to very 
shallow water in the month of July—exceptionally shallow water—that we 
were held up by bar trouble—navigation trouble, it might be called. All the 
space that is white in here is running time; all that is blue is waiting for 
freight; and all that is orange is machinery trouble, such as boiler, propeller, 
or repairing trouble; and the brown at the top and bottom is the night when it 
is too dark to run and the boat is not running, but is lying up for night, and 
also for storm or rain. 

Mr. Mackie. Mr. von Pagenhardt, will you please explain the relation of the 
machinery trouble to sand-bar trouble? 

Mr. von Pagenhardt. Yes. It must he understood that this machinery trou¬ 
ble is a direct consequence of the bar trouble—navigation trouble—because our 
rudders are subjected to breakage in running over a sand bar, and the pro¬ 
pellers are hitting lumps and snags and floating driftwood. It also happens 
that on this boat, which we bought—we did not build it—there are keel con¬ 
densers, and they would be damaged, owing to the fact that we would run on 
sand bars, and that had to be repaired. So that these big losses of time, wait¬ 
ing for freight, these blue spots which you see here, are caused by the red 
spots in the two months prior to the blue spots, because, as we did not give any 
service, due to the sand-bar trouble, we did not get the freight four weeks to 
eight weeks later. Now, this other chart looks a great deal better—this is in 


276 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


black and white—for the spring season of 1915, and shows 52 per cent efficiency. 
Fifty-two per cent, as you will observe, is white, while on this other chart only 
22 per cent is white. You see here that many days we have run day and night— 
24 hours. Each column means a day and each twenty-fourth of a column means 
an hour, and the line running through this whole chart represents the stage of 
the water at Kansas City. That, of course, has always a relation to the run¬ 
ning efficiency of our boats. 

We have, as I say, succeeded in securing 52 per cent efficiency in this season 
in the towboat A. M. Scott and 434 per cent efficiency in the towboat Advance. 
We do not expect ever to get more than 70 per cent, because that is the maxi¬ 
mum of practical navigation, not only here but practically all over the world. 
Boats can not run 100 per cent. No boats do 70 per cent, with very few excep¬ 
tions. Boats that have a record like the Great Lake boats, which have run, 
perhaps, more days out of the working year than any other boats, do not run 
100 per cent. They only run a fraction of 100 per cent. Of course, a river 
boat does not run and can not run as much as a Great Lakes boat or ocean¬ 
going boat. 

We have found that our product is to be measured not only in tonnage and 
not only in ton-mileage, but in ton-miles per hour. That is our revenue. We 
have to move so many tons so many miles in the shortest number of hours. If 
we moved, for instance, in 1913, in round numbers, almost 4,000,000 ton-miles— 
3,900,000 ton-miles in a certain number of hours—we have a ton-mile per hour 
capacity in 1913 of 300; in 1914. 420, or an increase of 40 per cent; and in 1915, 
up to the 1st of October, 1915, 1,075, or an increase of 156 per cent over 
1914 and 25S per cent over 1913. That is our source of revenue, our article 
that we produce—the ton-mile per hour : —and that Is what we get paid for. 
It is on that basis that we have to build up our fleet, that we have to build 
up our towboat and our barges, on that same plan of ton-mile per hour. 

Mr. Mackie. Mr. Von Pagenhardt, before proceeding to the details of build¬ 
ing, etc., will you please, for the benefit of the board, give us some com¬ 
parison between the running time and running efficiency upon the upper and 
lower parts of the river; that is, what you would call the upper half of the 
river as compared with the lower half, where there is a regular channel. How 
do the boats run in the lower part of the river as compared with the upper part 
of the river out of each 24 hours? 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. The charts would show that each trip which is made 
in the neighborhood this year of four to six days, that in the lower stretch 
of the river, up to Glasgow, we run usually not less than an average of 5 miles 
an hour, while in the upper stretch we run not more than 3 miles an hour, 
bringing the total to. we will say, 4 miles per hour. We run day and night, 
usually, in the lower stretch and run only once in a while day and night in the 
upper stretch of the river. However, so far we have not kept a record of it, 
due to the difficulties connected with it; but we have intended all the time to 
keep a record of the time thus saved by running over stretches of improved 
river. I am not able to give such exact information as yet. 

The ton-mile per hour capacity influences the size of our barge and towboat. 
For instance, if our towboat, the A. M. Scott , can move a barge containing 350 
tons of freight at a speed of 8 miles per hour through the water, which is a 
speed of 4 miles per hour against the current, or perhaps 5 miles at some of 
the crossings, which would represent the mean speed of the boat, we would 
have the ton-mile capacity of 3.000 ton-miles. That is the capacity of our tow¬ 
boat, the A. M. Scott. No matter what we do to her, whether we add addi¬ 
tional barges or carry less tonnage at a greater speed, we always have 3,000. 
At least, that is our normal maximum. It might be exceeded at some time, 
but the rule is the tonnage times the speed is a constant. So that we have a 
capacity for the towboat A. M. Scott or the Advance of 3,000 ton-miles at a 
stage of the river of 4 feet. Provided we had 6 feet minimum, that same barge 
that can load 350 tons could load GOO tons, and the capacity of the boat would 
automatoically increase to 5,000. Provided we could push a thousand-ton 
barge, the capacity of the boat would not increase any more. Whether we 
loaded 1,000 or 1,500 ton barges, our capacity for that boat would be limited 
to 5,000, and we would have to buy another boat or build one that had a 
greater ton-mile capacity per hour. 

But our barge design is influenced by this: The value of a barge to us is 
the amount of tonnage we can carry on a certain draft, moving at a certain 
speed, divided by the resistance that the barge offers; and we know that a 
600-ton barge loaded with 335 tons, as we move them now, drawing 4 feet, has 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 277 


a resistance of 10,000 pounds moving with a speed of 8 miles per hour through 
the water. Its value to us is 335 tons divided by 10,000 pound, or 5 tons, 
which equals 67. If that same barge is loaded to its capacity of 600 tons, with 
the resistance going to 12,000 pounds, its value to us would be increased to 100. 
If we could select a thousand-ton barge with the same fair dimensions and 
lines its value would rise to 1,000 tons divided by 7$, or 133. Or, if we could 
select a 1,250-ton barge such as our Endeavor , the value to us would be still 
more’ than that, or 1,250 tons divided by 8*, or 147. We know, then, that in 
moving a certain unit through the water we need as pushing power the amount 
of resistance offered by the barge moving at a certain speed through the water 
plus the resistance of the towboat itself moving at a certain speed through the 
water, and that is then translated into effective or indicated horsepower. Now, 
we knew, because we had the A. M. Scott before we bought the barges, that 
we had 15,000 pounds pushing power, and therefore we could only make her 
push barges of ten to eleven or twelve thousand pounds of resistance at the 
outside to get the merchandise speed which we want to attain, 4 miles against 
this current. And it is along that line that we have proceeded. 

We will naturally reach a limit; in fact, we have reached a limit with our 
present equipment. We know we can not do any more and we know what it 
represents to us at the present time. We know the income it represents to us, 
which is a certain figure and which can not be increased with the present 
equipment, and that all that we can do is to increase our mileage provided we 
get full tonnage capacity. 

In order to determine this push and this relation of push to horsepower, we 
have gone into extended investigations. We have determined the push of our 
barges by a number of tests, and we have found out by gathering data from 
other countries, and by information which we have gathered ourselves and from 
tests made by ourselves, we have gathered data regarding the thrust per unit 
of horsepower of tunnel boats as well as stern-wheel boats; and we perhaps 
better than anybody else in this country can tell how many pounds of work 
can be performed by a horsepower in either kind of vessel. Now, that is not 
a certain figure; it is represented by a line, which we call a curve. 

Through the permission and by the authorization of Maj. Smith, secretary of 
the Mississippi River Commission, we received permission to make tests on the 
1st of October, lasting from the 6th to the 16th of October, this month, to test 
the Inspector , the new tunnel towboat, and we have established the peculiar 
fact that this little Inspector indicated or generated more thrust on a 
dynamometer than the big Winoka. Of course that don’t show that the In¬ 
spector is at all times more powerful than the Winoka; but it gave us more 
thrusts than the Winoka. It just so happened, however, that the Winoka could 
generate only 575 horespower, whereas it is supposed to generate 850 horse¬ 
power; and it therefore only registered on the thrust gauge 16.350 pounds, 
while the little Inspector , boosted to a thousand horsepower, registered 18,000 
pounds. We also made the same curves for speed, but what we are interested 
in, particularly in river navigation, is the thrust. It is comparatively a new 
thing. 

Col. Black. What do you say the horsepower of the Inspector was? 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. We boosted her that particular time, this particular 
test, to a thousand indicated horsepower—just did it, just made her do it. 

Col. Black. What boats were these the Inspector was tested with? 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. Well, there are five of those boats, known as the 
Nokomis , the Winoka, and other Indian names. 

Col. Black. Whom do they belong to? 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. They are Mississippi River Commission Government 
boats, built or designed by Mr. Middleton. It does not say anything against the 
Winoka. It just so happens that the boiler power was cut down from 187 to 
155; they are 17 years old. And while they can turn up their wheel in run¬ 
ning in the river, and while they could have turned their wheel 10 years ago 
even standing still pushing against a tied object, they couldn’t do it now with 
the cut-down power. In other words, the Inspector could have, as a joke, 
pushed that Winoka downstream and, possibly, even upstream. Of course I 
am not willing to state that officially. 

Our comparison between the tunnel boat and the stern-wheel boat is based 
on three years’ experience with the two boats in actual service. As a matter 
of fact, all paddle boats generate more pounds thrust per indicated horsepower 
than tunnel boats. It is a more efficient application of that particular thing, 
namely, the reaction of the water. While a tunnel ooat generates its original 


278 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


power cheaper than the stern-wheel boats, even comparing one of the high-class, 
stern-wheel boats with tandem compound condensing engines with a high-class 
tunnel boat, triple expansion condensing, I do not think that the stern-wheel 
boat can generate its power for less than 20 pounds of steam per indicated 
horsepower. Our Advance does it for 23, and we might possibly reduce it to 
22, while the tunnel boat, the A. M. Scott, about the same as the Inspector, 
generates her power for 15.8 pounds of steam per indicated horsepower. It 
is, therefore, cheaper, or just as cheap, to generate 650 horsepower in tunnel 
boats as to generate 500 horsepower in a stern-wlieel boat, and there is the 
whole reason of the equality of our two boats in actual service. As a matter 
of fact, due to particular conditions existing this year, our tunnel boat, the 
A. M. Scott, has consumed more—in fact, $10 worth of fuel per day more— 
of oil than the Advance; but it can be explained by trouble with our inherited 
keel condenser. That, of course, gave us a bad condition in our boilers and 
condenser and no vacuum, and therefore a higher fuel consumption. 

We know that if we compare the two boats we have to take into account the 
smallness of the one compared with the other boat. Our boats are the smallest 
boats in the country compared with the horespower delivered. The tunnel 
boat, the A. M. Scott, generating 750 horsepower on a displacement of 175 tons 
generates 2.7 horsepower per ton of displacement, and the Advance, with her 
600 indicated horsepower, moving on a 250-ton displacement, or about 2.4 
horsepower per ton. There is no other boat in the country—that is, of large 
boats above 500 horsepower—that will do that. 

The efliciency of our boats has been increased markedly by the introduction 
of fuel oil, which we burn under our furnaces. We have burned coal first on 
the .4. M. Scott and we have burned oil on the Chester in the first years and 
then we turned to fuel oil and studied the subject and succeeded by an installa¬ 
tion which has proved a perfect atomizer, permitting our oil furnace to give 
a high efficiency—an evaporation of 16£ pounds of water per pound of oil, or 
a boiler efficiency of 83 per cent. Now, we published those data, or part of them, 
and gave them to Mr. Ward, of the Ward Engineering Works, who wanted to 
build some boilers for the Navy, and the Navy was interested in our test to such 
an extent that they sent an inspector to St. Louis who had opportunity and 
who did inform himself and satisfy himself as much as one can by looking at 
it of the correctness of our claim. It is as good a result as has been accom¬ 
plished anywhere in the country—16J pounds of steam from 1 pound of fuel oil. 

The additional advantage, of course, of fuel oil is in the scientific manage¬ 
ment of the boiler room. It has taken it away from the hands of firemen and 
put it really in the hands of the designer. It is automatic; and any efficiency 
that is designed can he maintained—or almost so—with a good chief engineer 
in charge of the boat. Therefore we can keep up our speed that we lay out 
for the boat and keep up the ton-miles per hour to the capacity of the boat. 

I don’t know whether the board is interested in the comparative data of the 
cost of running the A. M. Scott per day and the Advance —the difference between 
the two per day. 

Chairman Black. We would like to hear it very much, but I fear our time 
will not permit of it. 

Mr. Mackie. Just before you leave the stand—you had some experience with 
the Mississippi River, and from an engineering standpoint and the standpoint 
of a designer you have some opinion as to why there is not so very much com¬ 
merce on the river, especially with reference to the boats not being designed 
for the purpose for which they are intended. Will you enlighten the board on 
that, please? 

Mr. Von Pageniiardt. The design of the boats is one of the most important 
parts of making up or building up river navigation. It is not the most impor¬ 
tant part, because I can realize very well that with an unlimited amount of 
money and perfect terminal conditions and freight conditions, almost any¬ 
thing will do the work until that organization has perfected itself; but eventu¬ 
ally even that concern would have to use boats of lines correctly designed, 
and would have to use a plan which is correct. 

We have come, of course, to the conclusion that the only perfect plan for us 
is that of towboat and barges, and we have laid down our reasons in various 
reports which we have made to other cities, such as St. Louis, St. Paul, and 
others; and we know exactly how we can determine, by following certain rules 
which are laid down, the ton-mile per hour; and we can lay down the exact 
dimensions and the proper lines and the sizes and number of those barges, 
and we know that to make a success in towboating it is not so important 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 279 


whether one or the other type of boat is used, provided either type is designed 
rightly and correctly in accordance with its true scientific basis and principle. 
That means the ability to attain the maximum amount of thrust per indicated 
horsepower. 

Mr. Mackie. I am afraid you did not quite catch the question. You and I 
have traveled all over the inland waters seeking information. I would like to 
ask and have you tell the board whether you have seen on the inland waters 
any boats and barges, except our own, of course, properly designed for the 
purposes for which they were to be used. 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. With the exception of those boats like the Kate Adams, 
which is a comparatively good packet boat and of considerable speed, I do not 
believe I know of any boat that is designed correctly; and even that, of course, 
is not designed on a scientific basis. It just follows old rules of experience 
and just happens to be right. As the owner himself said, the old Kate 
Adams was really a little faster than this Kate Adams. It just happened so. 

Col. Newcomer. What is your criticism of the self-propelled barge? 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. I believe firmly in the future of the self-propelled 
barge under certain conditions. I believe—in fact, I know—that slack-water 
navigation favors the self-propelled barge; and I know also that even stretches 
of the river, possibly even long stretches of river, can be successfully navi¬ 
gated, not so much now by a self-propelled barge, but what is known as a 
motor freight barge. There are four types or systems of river navigation—• 
the packet boat, the self-propelled barge, the motor freight barge, and the tow¬ 
boat and barge system. The self-propelled barge is successful in slack-water 
navigation and possibly in another connection, working with towboat and 
barges. The motor freight barge, which is a fast self-propelled barge, is suc¬ 
cessful in rivers where a particularly fast service is required to get high- 
class freight quickly to the customer, such as pianos, and so on, running in 
between the large tows. The packet boat is no good for anything, and the 
towboat and barge system is the only method of moving large tonnage on a 
profitable basis. 

Col. Newcomer. Can you give your reasons for limiting the successful appli¬ 
cation of the self-propelled barge to slack water? 

Mr. Yon Pagenhardt. The self-propelled barge, in comparison with the tow¬ 
boat and barge system? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes. 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. That might be answered best by stating the advantages 
of the towboat and barge system—answering it in the negative. The advantages 
of the towboat system for any service are, first, the largest carrying capacity 
per dollar of investment. I can prove that with the other boat that is not so. 
I think. Further advantages are, it is the cheapest transporting medium per 
ton of freight in throught-freight movements; the most convenient and cheap¬ 
est system in loading and unloading; the advantage of independent terminals 
for independent barges, as we have heard spoken of with regard to this river, 
as, for instance, laying barges all down along the river; it favors direct loading 
and unloading over shipside, whenever that comes into consideration; it has 
the largest flexibility of all systems, and the lowest depreciation and insurance 
account; it favors the interchange of freight in barge units; it is the most 
reliable of all means of transportation; it has the lowest overhead expense 
per ton of freight, where the maximum tonnage is moved. The best system, 
from the financial standpoint, therefore, is the towboat and barge system. 

Col. Newcomer. Would that reasoning also apply to any case where you had 
a given commodity, say a large quantity of coal, to be moved between fixed 
points, as from the mine to somewhere? 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. Yes; I think so, Colonel; because you can move more 
coal with towboat and barge than you can by using a self-propelled barge. You 
can move on this river or we will take it on the Mississippi River, you can move 
for each horsepower you put in the boat, 4 tons, or for a thousand horsepower. 
4 000 tons in barge units. That tonnage might be in two or three or four barges. 
That has nothing to do with it. But you could not think of moving with a 
thousand horsepower at the same speed, in a river with the same current, the 
same tonnage in self-propelled barges, not for reason of power but of size. You 
could not build the barge big enough. Then there is a further consideration of 
importance particularly in river navigation, which goes against the self-pro¬ 
pelled barge system, and that is that a self-propelled barge can go aground. 
Anything will "go aground in river navigation once in a while, and the self- 
propelled barge—which takes advantage of the rule that a large hull is more 


280 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


easily pushed through the water, with less horsepower, than many small hulls— 
is helpless as soon as she goes aground. For instance, if she is a 450-horse¬ 
power barge, she has only 450 horsepower available to pull off a sand bar the 
weight of 3 500 tons; while if this 3,500 tons were in several barges and pushed 
by a 1,000-horsepower towboat, that 1,000 horsepower could be applied to each 
unit and pull that barge off that bar in no time. 

Col. Newcomer. I don’t think you have given yet the influence of slack 
water on the problem. 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. Now, this slack water—that always means narrowness 
of channel and therefore the impossibility of moving wide fleets. 

Col. Newcomer. Our slack-water rivers do not have narrow channels in all 
cases. 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. For instance, the Ohio? 

Col. Newcomer. Yes; and for instance in all our canalized rivers. Take 
the Monongahela. 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. Well, I would say the Monongahela was narrow, and 
therefore a self-propelled barge- 

Col. Newcomer (interrupting). It is five or six hundred feet wide. 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. From all experience it can not be compared with our 
Mississippi or Ohio. And then, furthermore, there are particular conditions. If 
you refer to the self-propelled barge system of New Orleans and Alabama, 
they have to go over the sound, and all that condition is in favor of the self- 
propelled barge—the individual unit. Now, I would not call the Ohio strictly 
slack water. I do not believe it would be correct to call the Ohio River slack- 
water navigation. It is, after all, only at best a canalized river. 

Col. Newcomer. You take these rivers where they have been canalized- 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. I would still consider the towboat movement as the 
most favorable of all movements. For instance, the upper Monongahela, to 
which you refer, with its towboat movement of coal, carried 3,000,000 tons last 
year. 

Col. Newcomer. More than that. It moved 10,000,000. 

Mr. Von Pagenhardt. The cost has been reduced. I do not think the self- 
propelled barge system could do a good deal better than the towboat and 
barge system; but, however, it is difficult to say right offhand. I have not 
studied the conditions of the Monongahela River to such an extent that I 
would like to state one way or the other. [Applause.] 

(Witness excused.) 

Congressman Borland. Mr. President, inasmuch as a great many of these 
shippers are not able to be here, and much of their testimony will be in dupli¬ 
cation anyway of what you have already heard, I am going to ask the consent 
of the board to insert in the record additional letters from these shippers, giv¬ 
ing the tonnage they gave the boat line in 1913, 1914, and 1915, and the amount 
of tonnage they are able to offer as the service improves. 

Chairman Black. We will be very glad to receive it. 

Congressman Borland. 1 want to show by that, and I simply mention it here 
without cumulating the testimony, that I am confident the aggregate will more 
than justify the highest demands made in the report of the district officer, 
which demands we are not willing to concede are just, on an unimproved river, 
but we think that the present tonnage offered, without regard to prospective 
tonnage, will practically answer those demands. 

I want to call attention to this fact in passing, that here is a navigation com¬ 
pany which has been built up out of the promise, practically, of an improved 
river. It has been confronted with a great many incidental problem;, and as 
the board has shown intense interest in some of these problems it will readily 
see that it has solved a great many of them, and whatever improvement of 
transportation or navigation it has brought about it has not kept to itself, but 
it has laid that information fully before other navigation or transportation com¬ 
panies for their use in order to build up the general transportation of the 
country. 

In other words, the continued existence and success of this Kansas City 
Missouri River Navigation Co. in the navigation of the Missouri River is much 
mere important than a mere local proposition. If the Missouri River, with all 
this solution of these problems and the navigation with modern conditions, can¬ 
not justify itself as a carrier of freight there is not an inland waterway in the 
country which can justify itself. 

Col. Newcomer. Have you made any summary of the amount of tonnage? 

Congressman Borland. I have not, Colonel, because the statements are still 
coming in; I hope to do that during the day. They are greater than I hoped 




MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 281 


for when I called for the statements, and they are still coming in, so that I 
have not yet made a summary of them, but it is quite large. 

Col. Newcomer. I think it would be valuable to this board if Mr. Dickey 
would have his company submit to the board a statement of its experience in 
operation and of the information it has given to these other cities who have 
been considering the establishment of boat lines. 

Mr. Dickey. I would be very glad to do that, Mr. President and gentlemen 
of the board. We have systematized our work and gotten information, and 
we have collated it and put it in shape, and we have passed it out to up and 
down stream cities where they have applied to us for information, because we 
are in the peculiar position of wanting to multiply the river traffic. We are not 
in the position of any other line in this entire country that wants to get the 
business and hold it and get higher rates, and who are trying to put other 
people out of business. We have been doing the very opposite, and we will file 
our statistical reports on both branches of the business. 

Congressman Borland. I was just handed a memorandum that shows the 
amount of freight under contract to the boat line company, the freight already 
pledged to it, that it can absolutely command, and which is in addition to 
what has already been testified to, not prospective freight that we could move on 
an improved river, but the freight pledged to the boat line as soon as it is 
equipped to handle it. Eastbound, 123,040 tons; westbound, 165,023 tons; with 
the addition during the last two months of 59,000 tons, making a total of 
347,063 tons which the boat line has under contract as soon as it is able to move 
it, and that does not begin to compare with the business laid before you this 
morning. 

Mr. Sangster, will you testify now? Senator Reed wishes to examine Mr. 
Sangster. 

Chairman Black. The question of getting through comes up. It is now 
nearly 1 o’clock, and the board must have some lunch, and we must stop at 4 
o’clock. 

Senator Reed. Let me make this suggestion, please: The board has heard 
considerable testimony and I would think that the board might give the Com¬ 
mercial Club and others interested a certain number of days in which to file 
written statements of merchandise, or a statement compiling the amounts of 
merchandise with the board. 

.Chairman Black. How much time do you want? 

Congressman Borland. I think 10 days will be sufficient. 

Judge Bland. Could we have 20 days to do that? 

Chairman Black. Our boar 1 meets twice a month; the next meeting will be 
next Tuesday, and the meeting following that will be two weeks afterwards. 
In November we will have to go to Little Rock, and that will take us about 
half a month, so we are very glad indeed to get it as soon as we can. I only 
say this to show that the longer you take, the longer will be postponed any 
action that we can take. 

Senator Reed. We desire to give it to you as promptly as possible, because it 
is a matter that will come before Congress properly at the next session, and 
it is important that the information should reach the Chief of Engineers in time 
so that it can be incorporated in his report to Congress and his recommenda¬ 
tion of appropriation. Now, we at one time had a resurvey of this Missouri 
River, and the report was not made in time to get into the Chief of Engineer’s 
recommendation, and we had interminable difficulty in getting a special report 
in so that it could get before the committees of Congress. Therefore, I say to 
you, gentlemen, that I think you had better take the shortest possible time to 
file this information. 

Congressman Borland. I do not think it will take 10 days. 

Senator Reed. Besides, if we had a year, we could not begin to present to the 
board the possibilities of this situation. All we can do is to present samples, 
and leave to human imagination and general inference the rest of it. With that 
statement, we can shorten the hearing this afternoon, and I state to the board 
frankly that I want to submit to the board some remarks upon this situation 
before it leaves, and I will make it as short as I can. 

Chairman Black. If we take a recess now until 2 o’clock, that will give us two 
hours in the afternoon; will that be sufficient? 

Congressman Borland. I think so. We want to put on a very important wit¬ 
ness, Mr. R. D. Sangster, transportation commissioner of the commercial club, 
and his testimony will take in a considerable scope of the commercial value of 
the Missouri River. I think that can all be covered, together with a summing up, 
in two hours. 


282 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO v TO THE MOUTH. 

Mr. Kennedy. Might I ask, on behalf of the Commercial Club of Omaha, the 
privilege of submitting to the board a detailed statement, in connection with its 
showing? 

Chairman Black. We shall be very glad to get it, Mr. Kennedy. 

We will now take a recess until 2 o’clock. 

Assembly Room, Commercial Club, 
Kansas City, Mo., October 20, 1915—2 p. m. 

Present as before. 

Chairman Black. The hearing will please come to order. 

Senator Reed. Mr. Sangster. I wish to say to the board that we have held 
Mr. Sangster until this time, expecting to have a very full review by him of this 
whole question, but in view of the fact that the right has been granted to file 
papers with the board, we will abbreviate as much as we can. 

R. D. Sangster, called as a witness, testified as follows: 

Senator Reed. Please give your name. 

Mr. Sangster. R. D. Sangster. 

Senator Reed. What is your occupation, Mr. Sangster? 

Mr. Sangster. Transportation commissioner of the Commercial Club of Kansas 
City, Mo. 

Senator Reed. How long have you held that position? 

Mr. Sangster. The rise of a year. 

Senator Reed. What was your position before that? 

Mr. Sangster. For the past 17 years I have been connected—engaged in traffic 
matters exclusively and continuously, the first 11 or 101 years of which was in 
the railroad service with the Illinois Central, the Rock Island, and Frisco lines, 
and the latter part of which has been on the shippers’ side, in this southwestern 
and western country. 

Senator Reed. Were you engaged as a traffic man by the railroads, represent¬ 
ing them? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes ; in the freight traffic department exclusively. 

Senator Reed. I take it, then, Mr. Sangster, that for many years you have 
studied the whole question of transportation, rates, and so forth? 

Mr. Sangster. I have studied the traffic matters of this territory. 

Senator Reed. Mr. Sangster, what have you to say to the board with reference 
to the boat-line situation, and its effect upon rates? And you may make your 
answer as full and complete as you desire. 

Mr. Sangster. I should like to say that my testimony will be largely in the 
form of references to the exhibits numbered 1 to 48 which are incorporated in the 
brief. Those exhibits were compiled under my direction at the instance of the 
waterways committee of the Kansas City Commercial Club, in general charge of 
this case. 

Senator Reed. Are you prepared to say now that those tables, that are there set 
forth, are correct? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes, sir; to the best of my knowledge and belief. The com¬ 
mittee in question is composed of Messrs. W. T. Bland, chairman, Walter S. 
Dickey, F. G. Crowell, C. D. Parker, Leon Smith, O. V. Wilson, and R. L. Redpath, 
a majority of whom are past presidents of the organization and peculiarly 
familiar with local commercial conditions in this territory and in this city and 
its environs. 

I shall attempt to demonstrate that the traffic and transportation conditions 
and the manner of the rate adjustment in the territory west of the Mississippi 
peculiarly enhances the value of the Missouri River as an agency of transporta¬ 
tion, and that it is one of the most vital inland water courses with which this 
board may deal; this with due regard not only to local traffic immediately 
tributary to the river, but to the commerce of the great section of producing and 
consuming territory in this country. 

Treating the river from a tonnage standpoint pure and simple, the Missouri 
River and its recent record does not appear to be a mean one, nor to warrant 
a discontinuance of the existing improvement project. The tonnage being 
handled is increasing, as you have been told, in its grade as to the class. A 
comparison of the rapid rise in Missouri River commerce with the history of 
water-borne commerce between the Atlantic and Pacific coasts is illustrative of 
the point. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 283 


At page 384 of the Interstate Commerce Commission’s volume 15 of reports, 
in dealing with the city of Spokane (Wash.) case, decided February 0, 1909, a 
very complete history of the coast-to-coast water service and the rail service 
across the country of the transcontinental lines is given, and in connection with 
subsequent cases under the same docket number forms with them a situation 
that is more comparable with what the Missouri River is and can be made to he 
as a commerce carrier. At page 3S4 of that report this language appears, dealing 
now with 1909: 

“ For many years before the construction of any transcontinental line of rail¬ 
way the only practicable means of transporting freight in considerable quantities 
from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast was by water, and after the railway became 
available this same method of transportation continued to he used. In the early 
days of the development of the Pacific coast passengers and freight were taken 
by water to Colon, carried by stage across the Isthmus of Panama, and again 
shipped by water to San Francisco or other points upon the coast. Subsequently 
the Panama Railroad took the place of the stage and this route to-day is in 
active operation. It is well understood that for the purpose of preventing com¬ 
petition by this line the transcontinental railroads for several years purchased 
a sufficient amount of the entire space available by the steamships plying in 
connection with the Panama Railroad to control the rates. To-day this line 
maintains rates somewhat below the all-rail rates and handles approximately 
40,000 tons of traffic annually.” 

In the year 1900 the American-Hawaiian Steamship Co., via the Straits of 
Magellan, handled a tonnage from New York to the Pacific coast of about 115,000 
tons. 

Beginning early in the year 1907, the American-Hawaiian Steamship Co. in¬ 
augurated a new route, known as the Tehuantepec route, consisting of a ship 
carriage from New York to Coatzacoalcos, Mexico, a rail carriage from thence 
across Mexico, 193 miles via the Tehuantepec National Railroad to Salina Cruz, 
and thence by vessel to destination. The time by this route is 25 days from New 
York to San Francisco, 35 days to Portland, and 40 days to Seattle. 

When the testimony in this case was taken this route had only just been 
opened for business, but its traffic manager testified that he expected to carry 
to the full capacity of his vessels with ease, and that his capacity would be 
at the outset 250,000 tons per annum. 

In the foregoing paragraphs of this report it was shown that the original 
service was from 135 to 200 days by those routes. 

Now, coming down to date, the Panama Canal, as disclosed by the commis¬ 
sion’s findings, or rather the testimony of all-rail carriers recently placed before 
the Interstate Commerce Commission in a hearing dealing with a complete sup¬ 
plementary list of commodities as to which the rail carriers applied for authority 
to reduce the terminal coast cities’ rates from the East without reducing the 
rates to intermountain and intermediate territory, the carriers showed the 
tonnage by the Panama Canal route from September 27, 1914, to September 5, 
1915, to be 900,057 tons. 

All this emphasizes the importance of the testimony of the shippers and com¬ 
mercial interests before you that the primary and controlling elements of water 
transportation include the volume of tonnage available, and expeditious and 
dependable service, the character of channel, the type and capacity of craft and 
adequacy of terminal facilities, and the relation of routes of transportation by 
the water carriers to the established course of traffic, and its ability to inter¬ 
change traffic with connections, rail and water. 

I wish to point out briefly the results of the various exhibits above referred to. 
Nos. 1 to 14. inclusive, deal with the recent growth of Missouri River States in 
population, value of farm crops, value of farm property, production of principal 
grains, value of manufactured products, and production of minerals. This is 
found at page 145 of the brief. This as a basis for enabling the board to intel¬ 
ligently reckon the prospective increase in traffic in future, based on past per¬ 
formance and upon the growth of production in the past few years in this terri¬ 
tory and of its commerce. 

Exhibit 1 deals with population and shows that the Missouri River States, for 
the purposes of this case designated as Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, South 
Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, and Oklahoma, which are, with the exception 
of Oklahoma, the States included in the former reports to this board and upon 
which recommendations have been made. The population of those States in the 
year 1910 was an increase of 44.5 per cent for the previous decade. And for 


284 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 

the Ohio River States, which have been designated as Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, 
Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee, the population in 1910 
showed an increase of only 36.3 per cent for the same period. Those Ohio River 
States have been given for the obvious purpose of drawing, in a small measure, a 
parallel between the Missouri River and the territory which it as a thorough¬ 
going, completed inland-waterway carrier will serve, and the territory served 
by the Ohio, upon which the Govenment has been lavish in making expenditures. 

The Government census of population of Kansas City, Mo., and Kansas City, 
Kans., appears on the bottom of page 145, and shows that for the decade ending 
in 1910 the increase was 53.7 per cent. The estimate of July 1, 1914, of the 
census is not given here, but the figures are, Kansas City, Mo., 281,911; Kansas 
City, Ivans., 94,271; or an increase for four years of 13.7 per cent. 

Exhibit No. 2 deals with the value of farm crops and shows that the Mis¬ 
souri River States in 1909 had an increase of 109.5 per cent, and the Ohio River 
States an increase of 59.9 per cent. 

Col. Abbot. That is given in dollars? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes; in dollars, the value of all farm crops. 

Exhibit No. 3 shows the value of all farm property in the Missouri River 
and the Ohio River States. In the Missouri River States there was an increase 
in 1910, over a period from 1890, of 2S9.14 per cent. The percentage of increase 
for the whole United States for the same period was 154.9 per cent. The in¬ 
crease in the 1910 value of farm property in the Ohio River States from 1890 
was 91.3 per cent, and the increase of the total production for the entire country 
during the same period was 154.9 per cent. 

Now, with respect to the per cent of the entire country’s value of farm prop¬ 
erty, it is seen that the Missouri River States have increased from 21.29 per 
cent in 1890 to 32.56 per cent in 1910, while the percentage of the Ohio River 
States’ production as compared with the entire United States has dropped from 
34.36 per cent in 1890 to 25.79 per cent in 1910. 

Exhibit No. 4 deals with the wheat and corn production of the eight Missouri 
River States by years, from 1907 to 1914, inclusive. Of the entire wheat crop 
of the United States for these eight years, 46.7 per cent was grown in the Mis¬ 
souri River States, and of the entire corn crop 37.28 per cent. 

The principal grains for the year 1914. as produced in the Missouri River 
States, is shown by Exhibit No. 5. Your attention is directed to the fact that 
these States produce 54.2 per cent of the entire wheat crop of the country; 

38.8 per cent of the entire corn crop of the country; 41.8 per cent of the entire 
oats crop of the country; 35 per cent of the entire barley crop of the country; 

20.9 per cent of the entire hay crop of the country; and 20.83 per cent of the 
entire wool crop or production, I should say. 

Col. Newcomer. Do you think these figures are all significant as bearing on 
the improvement of the Missouri River from Kansas City to its mouth? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes; we think these figures and the rate of gain which they 
reflect are a safe criterion for this board to use in estimating what the gain 
in commerce will be upon the Missouri River, which leads directly from the 
rate-basing point and the center of traific in this territory, in its movement to 
the eastern markets. 

Col. Newcomer. These include the States of Montana and North and South 
Dakota, which are quite a distance from the river? 

Mr. Sangster. Quite a distance, it is true. We have in Kansas City the 
second most important grain market in the United States. We have the biggest 
hay market in the United States. We do not stop at the boundary lines of 
Kansas or Nebraska, but we go into North and South Dakota for grain in sub¬ 
stantial volume and into Colorado for hay. 

Col. Newcomer. And that is shipped down here, is it? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes; we draw to this market and commercialize and mer¬ 
chandise this hay and grain and forward it to destination. More specific detail 
will appear in subsequent exhibits as to tonnage. 

Senator Reed. Let me get that in a word; is it not true that Kansas City is 
the farthest west distributing point of importance and that it dominates all 
other points until you get to the Rocky Mountains? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes; and it is the greatest clearing house, for the products of 
the States enumerated, west of Chicago. 

Senator Reed. Now ,Mr. Sangster, without interrupting you, I wish you would 
make this part of your observation just as short as you can, because the time 
is flying very rapidly, The board will undoubtedly examine these tables, and 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 285 


I think they would be more interested in your views and generalization than in 
the details. 

Mr. Sangster. With that in mind I will pass on to the next set of tables 
which deals with the recent gain of Missouri River cities in grain and products, 
and in hay shipments, commercial developments, industrial development, live¬ 
stock transactions, and the value of manufactured products which are covered 
by Exhibits 15 to 24, inclusive, which are correlative of the foregoing exhibits 
and serve to further illustrate what may be anticipated in the way of increasing 
commerce. 

Coming, now, to the section opposite page 1G4 of the brief, it embraces Ex¬ 
hibits No. 25 to 3G, and shows the recent gain in railroad mileage in Missouri 
River States; the railroad freight tonnage to. from, and through Missouri River 
cities; railroad freight revenue to, from, and through Missouri River cities, the 
mileage operated, density of tonnage, tons per train-mile, etc., representing the 
condition on western trunk line railroads. We have taken the actual east-bound 
traffic of these railroads for the year 1014, which lead east from Kansas City— 
through Kansas City from Kansas and southern Nebraska, and have shown 
what that tonnage is as divided between the classified commodities. 

At this point I might say that at paragraph 5 of our protest, and Exhibit A 
appended thereto, it should be corrected to read that the figures there given 
include the traffic to from and through Kansas City and southern Nebraska and 
the State of Kansas. 

Senator Reed. What are the totals now? 

Mr. Sangster. The totals are shown—well, we will refer to the percentage 
table shown in the right-hand margin of Exhibit No. 2G, which reflects that 
substantially G8 per cent of the entire eastbdund tonnage is made up of grain 
and grain products; and to the further percentage totals shown there, which 
shows that the traffic moving from Kansas City, from and via Kansas City, 
is G2.03 per cent of the whole traffic, both from and via all of the Missouri 
River cities from Omaha to Kansas City, inclusive. 

The first section of this table, Exhibit No. 26, gives the traffic from and via 
Kansas City; the second table from and via St. Joseph, Atchison, and Leaven¬ 
worth, and other cities grouped with Kansas City for rate purposes; and the 
third section gives the traffic moving from and via Omaha, South Omaha, and 
Council Bluffs. And the percentage of grain and grain products as shown 
in this table, in eastbound movement, may be taken in connection with the 
latter statement which is given of the actual tonnage upon the Great Lakes 
for the same year, to show to what extent that same character of commerce 


goes to make up the total tonnage of those water carriers. 

In Exhibit No. 26 is a computation of my own, upon which I have extended 
arbitrarily the westbound tonnage and revenue and eastbound revenue of these 
same railroads for the year 1914, based upon the actual eastbound movement 
of tonnage and built up upon the tonnage of 1906 of the same character and 
in the same directions. 

I call attention to the fact that from Kansas City in the year 1914, eastbound, 
the entire tonnage of 2,530,715 tons was 95.42 per cent of the entire tonnage 
to, from, and through Kansas City east and west in the year 1906, appearing 
just above and stated as 2,0o5,441 tons. 

Senator Reed. Are you at this point giving the board the total tonnage pass¬ 
ing through Kansas City, both east and west? 

Mr. Sangster. The 190S report of Maj. Schulz, according to a letter from 
Mr Jones, then president of the Kansas City Missouri River Improvement Co., 
I think quotes the figures given by the then transportation commissioner of 
this club Mr II. G. Wilson, and the tonnage there stated is 2,562,318 to, from, 
and via Kansas City. That can be taken in its relation to the actual figures 
before you of east and westbound tonnage for the year 1906 by the same rail¬ 
roads of 3,759,819 tons. , . , 

The figures which Mr. Wilson then gave were taken from these reports of 
the railroads, and I may say that the authority for those figures appears in 
exhibits filed in the Burnham-Hanna-Munger case before the Interstate Com¬ 
merce Commission, which went to the Supreme Court, and Mr. Wilson at that 
time computed that the traffic to and from the Southwest, including New 
Mexico Oklahoma, Texas, and from Colorado, and beyond, would double the 
traffic moving through Kansas City, which would make the total tonnage 
approximately 5,000,000 tons. Using the same basis of estimating to^lay the 
total tonnage through Kansas City to the.same territory would be 9,258,148 
tons; and bear in mind that is only through Kansas City. 


286 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


The second section of this arbitrary extension of Exhibit No. 26 may be 
referred to in some detail. That takes 20 per cent of the 1914 actual Kansas 
City tonnage eastbound, and compiled for the West on the 1906 figures, as the 
traffic which it is estimated conservatively would move by the boat line upon 
an improved river and shows that the eastbound tonnage, the estimated tonnage 
in 1914 via the river, would be 506,143 tons; westbound, 587,672 tons; making 
a total of 1,087,815 tons. The revenue upon that traffic would be a total of 
$284,485 for the rail lines; and for the boat line, upon the basis of 80 per cent, 
would be approximately $237,587. The tonnage for the year 1922, projected 
upon the figures shown by the record for the past eight years, would be, for the 
boat line, 1,903,676 tons, on which the revenue would be $398,278. 

Bear in mind all the while that these are figures dealing solely and alone 
with the traffic through Kansas City, to and from the southern Nebraska 
territory and the State of Kansas. If that be plussed by 100 per cent and 
made to embrace the traffic from the Southwest and Colorado and beyond, the 
boat-line tonnage would be 3,807,352, and the revenue would be $796,556. This 
is a direct saving of 20 per cent of the rail rate and is only on the tonnage 
handled by the river line, and does not contemplate any reduction of the rates 
in the traffic moving by rail; and this further assumes that but 20 per cent of 
the tonnage will go via the boat line; but the testimony of the Kansas City 
witnesses here clearly points to the conclusion that the tonnage will go, as far 
as Kansas City shippers may route it and deliver it to the boat line, in greater 
volume than even 20 per cent. 

Right in this connection, the lawful power of the shipper to route his freight 
has now been established by the amendment of section 15 of the act to regulate 
commerce, and together with the amendment of section 6 of the act, which 
has been referred to here in a general way, of August 24, 1912, by which the 
commission is given jurisdiction over water-and-rail carriers engaged in through 
transportation, that assures the two fundamental prerequisites to enable the 
Kansas City shippers, with the improved service and conditions which they 
think should obtain, and which are necessary to obtain in order to get their 
tonnage, to deliver that tonnage to the boat line. 

Senator Reed. You have spoken of those figures as projected figures. Are 
they based upon the experience of transportation companies and upon their 
growth in the past, the development of the past, of this section of the country 
to which you are referring? 

Mr. Sangster. The figures are built up upon the percentage which the east- 
bound revenue of the rail lines’ eastbound traffic for 1914 bears to the traffic 
of the same railroads for the year 1906. As to the westbound tonnage for 1914, 
it is based upon the relation which the westbound tonnage of the same rail¬ 
road in 1906 bore to the whole traffic for that year. We think that that is fair 
and logical, and that it is entirely reliable as data to support any such projec¬ 
tion of this kind. 

Senator Reed. Now, if you will proceed just as rapidly as you can with this 
part of your testimony. 

Mr. Sangster. The following tables, Exhibits No. 27 to 34, inclusive, have 
been lifted from the record in the Burnham-Hanna-Munger case above referred 
to, and give a complete analysis of the actual rail tonnage of the interriver 
lines and those serving the States of Kansas and southern Nebraska in the 
year 1906. 

Col. Newcomer, Have these tables been very carefully proof read, so that 
they are quite reliable and have no typographical errors? 

Mr. Sangster. I will follow that suggestion and cause them to be carefully 
read. They have not been checked from lack of time since they came from the 
printer, but I will have them checked with the records in the Burnham-Hanna- 
Munger case, which are in my office, and advise the board of any discrepancies 
noted. 

Exhibit No. 36 is a computation taken from the statistics of railways of the 
United States published by the Interstate Commerce Commission, and that 
table is worthy of close study; and I desire in connection with it to refer to 
a reference made by Mr. Goltra at last night’s session here to the effect, as I 
got it, that, due to the number of railroads going into the hands of the courts, 
and in consequence of the feeling of the St. Louis people that no cheaper rail 
transportation—rail charges—might be expected soon, because of w T hicli they 
now feel that internal water transportation must be encouraged, I wish, lest 
the impression be gained that the present level of rail rates is insufficient in this 
territory, to refer to the decision of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 287 


the recent Western Advance Rate case (I. & S. Docket, 555), decided July 30, 
1915, in which the commission analyzes the gross and net earnings of these lines. 
The opening statement of the syllabus reads as follows: “ Showing of operating 
results and financial condition of respondents considered, and upon the whole 
held,” etc. In that case they denied the proposed increase of rates in this terri¬ 
tory, with certain exceptions, as excessive and unwarranted. 

Senator Reed. Now, Mr. Sangster, I wish we could take the time to go 
through this in detail; but you have been on the stand three-quarters of an 
hour, and the court is going to adjourn in an hour; and, so far as possible, I 
wish you would put in the tables and let them speak for themselves, because 
there are some other matters we must go over orally which I think are of great 
importance. 

Mr. Sangster. I appreciate what you say, Senator. These tables have been 
prepared in direct reply to the district officer, and they are relied upon to sus¬ 
tain the contentions made that that report does not take proper consideration 
of the actual conditions; and while I shall be brief I want to be permitted to 
say that this testimony is directly to the point upon some of those propositions. 

Senator Reed. I understand that. I was only suggesting that the board would 
examine the documents. 

Mr. Sangster. I am attempting to point out and explain only such particular 
points as I think should be emphasized in order to bring forward the importance 
of the exhibit. 

Now, Exhibit No. 3S is a comparison of the rail rates, the lake-and-rail rates, 
and the canal-and-rail rates from New York City to Chicago, and the rates 
from Chicago to Kansas City upon certain commodity traffic. 

Exhibit 39 is a statement of the same sort with respect to class rates, and 
following my remarks with reference to the Western Rate Advance case and 
the Interstate Commerce decision attention is invited to Exhibit No. 39, which 
shows that the rates from Chicago to Minneapolis. 420 rail miles and from 
Chicago to Kansas City, 451 rail miles, were in 1910 upon substantially the same 
plane. The rates were practically identical at that time. In the year 1915 
the differences against Kansas City are as follows: First class, 20 cents; sec¬ 
ond class, 15 cents; third class. 5 cents; fourth class, 7 cents; fifth class. 7 
cents; class A, 7 cents; class P», 7 cents; class C, 5 cents; class D, 4 \ cents; 
class E, 3 cents. 

The rates via the all-rail lines from New York to Chicago are given in com¬ 
parison with the level of the rates from Chicago to Kansas City and also the 
rail-lake and canal-lake transportation. 

Exhibit No. 40 gives the eastbound rates on grain from the Missouri River 
and Minneapolis to Chicago, from Chicago to New York, and from representative 
Kansas and Nebraska points to Chicago, with distances. 

Exhibit No. 41 shows the lake-and-rail freights for the season of 1914 to be 
around 1 cent per bushel on grain from Chicago to Buffalo. It was estimated 
in Maj. Schulz’s report, in 1908, that grain should be handled on an improved 
Missouri River from Kansas City to St. Louis at 1 cent per bushel, which would 
seem to be well fortified by the rates from Chicago to Buffalo for the greater 
relative distance, tonnage considered; when I say tonnage, I mean tonnage 
for the Missouri River in prospect. In this connection the actual movement 
of grain and grain products by rail from Kansas City to the East and for 
export has been given in Exhibits 23 to 33, and should be taken in connection 
with the grain movement on the Great Lakes as appears later in Exhibit 
No. 47. 

Exhibit No. 42 shows the percentage of movement from Chicago via the Lakes 
of grain, and also via eastern and southeastern railroads, and demonstrates 
the large volume of tonnage moving by water. 

In connection with Exhibit No. 44, which is a very important statement in 
this case of the actual tonnage traveling by the Panama Canal in the year 
ending September 5, 1915, and in connection with Exhibits 45 and 46 follow¬ 
ing, I desire to introduce and have marked as Exhibit 44a a statement filed 
by the rail lines, in the fourth section of Application No. 10172 before the 
Interstate Commerce Commission, which is now pending, and in which it is 
proposed to make further radical reductions in the rates on various products 
in competition with the rates of the water lines. In this statement appears 
the proposed rates from all territory from New York to Colorado, inclusive, 
to the Pacific coast terminals. 

In Exhibits Nos. 45 and 46 are shown the present rates upon the same traffic 
and also the amount of reduction in cents per hundred pounds in those rates 


288 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


which the rails lines are making. In this statement it also appears that the 
rates which the rail lines propose to make through from the eastern territory 
to the terminals substantially approximate the combination of local rates from 
representative producing points in the middle and eastern territory inland to 
the Atlantic coast, plus the Gulf port rates of the local carriers, and no lower, 
demonstrating that the rail lines anticipate the amendment of the fourth sec¬ 
tion, and the difficulty which they may have in increasing any of these rates 
and justifying them upon conditions other than the absence of water com¬ 
petition. 

Now, Exhibits 47 and 48 are to be taken together. Exhibit 47 is a composite 
of the two principal tonnage exhibits introduced in the recent hearing before 
the Interstate Commerce Commission, I. & S. Docket 615, of the Lake lines for 
increased rates, lake and rail between Chicago and eastern points. Exhibit 
No. 48 is a computation made by Mr. Mackie, of the Kansas City Missouri 
River Navigation Co., and based upon the showing of the Lake lines in the case 
just referred to. 

I wish to say that the tonnage figures shown in Exhibit No. 26 of the rail 
lines east for the year 1914 have been converted from carloads to tons. The 
statement from which those figures came was filed as Joint Agent for Carriers 
Kimball’s Exhibit 1 in the Western Advance Rate case, I. & S. Docket 555, by 
the railroads. We have taken the average actual tonnage of the various com¬ 
modities there shown, as found by the Interstate Commerce Commission in 
its decision in that case, and have reduced the carload shipments to tons by 
the actual average tons as found by the Interstate Commerce Commission. 
Nearly all of those appear in Exhibit A to the protest of Kansas City and 
Missouri River territory in this matter. 

Senator Reed. Now, Mr. Sangster, will you give in a word, if you can, your 
conclusions from these various statements to the board; what is the point you 
desire to impress? 

Mr. Sangster. We think the tables go to justify the continuation of the im¬ 
provement project of the Missouri River and to absolutely demand its early 
completion, as before recommended by this board; and such computations as we 
have made seem to have been well borne out by the testimony of other wit¬ 
nesses who have appeared here who were competent to testify to the com¬ 
mercial conditions. 

Senator Reed. In other words, you put these tabulations, based upon actual 
experience and upon the actual freight that is being carried, over against the 
illustration used by Col. Deakyne, which he gets from the traffic on the Missis¬ 
sippi River from Cairo to St. Louis? 

Mr. Sangster. I do. 

Senator Reed. Where is the breaking point in rates from the East to the 
West? 

Mr. Sangster. At the Mississippi River. 

Senator Reed. Explain to the board in a word what is meant by the “ break¬ 
ing point.” 

Mr. Sangster. The breaking point is the point in the rate fabrication at 
which the rate changes its character, and the rates upon through traffic moving 
via or through that point are made by adding together the separate rates to 
and from that point. 

Senator Reed. In other words, you have got a rate from the Atlantic sea¬ 
board to St. Louis, a through rate; is that right? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes. 

Senator Reed. And, then, from St. Louis on west a different rate is estab¬ 
lished, is it? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes; from St. Louis west there is an entirely different rate. 

Senator Reed. Is that a higher or a lower rate than from the Atlantic sea¬ 
board to St. Louis? 

Mr. Sangster. It is a very much higher rate per mile. 

Senator Reed. Can you give ns a concrete illustration? 

Mr. Sangster. The first-class rate from New York City to St. Louis is 
92.2 cents. 

Senator Reed. And what is it now from St. Louis on to Kansas City? 

Mr. Sangster. I was trying to think of that mileage from New York to 
St. Louis. 

Judge Bland. About 1,127 miles. 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 289 


Mr. Sangster. It is something over 1,000 miles; and the first-class rate 
from St. Louis to Kansas City is 60 cents per 100 for 277 miles by the Wabash— 
which is the shortest distance. 

Senator Reed. And a similar change in the rates runs through all the classi¬ 
fication—a similar change? 

Mr. Sangster. A similar change occurs in all of the other class rates 
which are related to the first class and in the level of the commodity rates; and 
I may say that the rate west and southwest of the Missouri River increases 
per mile over the rate between the rivers. 

Senator Reed. When you get to Kansas City do you reach another breaking 
point in rates? 

Mr. Sangster. No, sir; the rates into Kansas are less than the Kansas City 
combination as established by the Interstate Commerce Commission in the 
State of Kansas case. They formerly were equal to a combination of rates 
from the East to the Mississippi River, from the Mississippi to the Missouri 
River, and from the Missouri River to destinaton. 

Senator Reed. So that it is true that the’ boat line operating from Kansas 
City to St. Louis comes into competition with the railroad rate, which is 
considerably higher than the eastern railroad rate? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes. 

Senator Reed. At this point and in order that the board may have before 
it exactly the question I am driving at, I will say to the board that I make 
a part of it a part of Col. Deakyne’s report, and it is all in, as I conceive it; 
I desire to read to the board, as a part of my question, a portion of paragraph 
6 of Col. Deakyne’s report as follows: 

“ I consider that the question of modifying or abandoning the project is one 
to be decided by a comparison of the cost involved with the benefits derived.” 

I now read a portion of section 14 of his report, as follows: 

“ There remains to be considered the question of prospective commerce, and, 
in my opinion, the improvement must stand or fall by this criterion. In the 
survey report, upon which the present project is based, the prospective com¬ 
merce was given by the president of the Missouri Valley River Improvement 
Association as 1.000,000 tons. See page 45 of House Document No. 1120, 
Sixtieth Congress, second session. That estimate was based upon a 10-foot chan¬ 
nel, with six or seven boats, especially adapted to the navigation of the Mis¬ 
souri River, handling cargoes of 2,000 tons each and making one round trip 
per week during a navigation season of 10 months.” 

Now, to the point: 

“ The fact is that anyone can make almost any estimate he sees fit as 
to the prospective commerce. I think a better way to approach the subject is 
by inquiry concerning a river that has been improved. An example is the 
Mississippi River between the mouth of the Ohio and the mouth of the 
Missouri. In the annual reports of the Chief of Engineers this stretch of 
river is reported as having a navigable depth of 6 feet or more during the 
entire navigation season of recent years. The commerce for the - calendar 
year 1913 was 258,709 short tons, not including sand and gravel or ferry traffic. 
It should be noted that this stretch of river is so situated as to draw commerce 
from the improved stretches of the Mississippi above and below it as well as 
from the Ohio and Missouri. If the Mississippi under these conditions and 
with a 6-foot channel carries 258,000 tons, it seems to me doubtful whether 
the Missouri with the same depth will carry any more. The Missouri River 
traffic would have to increase sevenfold to equal that on the above section of 
the Mississippi, and would have to increase a hundredfold to reach a figure 
commensurate with the cost of the work.” 

Then follows his conclusion that it is injudicious to continue this improve¬ 
ment. 

Senator Reed. Now, what is the distance between Kansas City and St. Louis—• 
the short-rail distance? 

Mr. Sangster. Two hundred and seventy-seven miles. 

Senator Reed. And what is the distance between St. Louis and Cairo? 

Mr. Sangster. One hundred and fifty-two miles via the Mobile & Ohio Rail¬ 
road. 

Senator Reed. Is it fair to compare a haul of 150 miles with a haul of 
twice that length? 

H. Doc. 463, 64-1 


19 



290 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Mr. Sangster. Well, it is not fair in any sense, but when the Cairo mileage 
has no connection with the volume of through traffic- 

Senator Reed (interrupting). I am coming to that. 

Mr. Sangster (continuing). It is less comparable. 

Senator Reed. You have already stated that Kansas City has a population 
of approximately 400,000 inhabitants. 

• Mr. Sangster. Yes. 

Senator Reed. And St. Louis has a population of about 750,000, I believe. 

Mr. Sangster. Yes, sir. 

Senator Reed. And what is the population of Cairo, Ill.? 

Mr. Sangster. Fifteen thousand five hundred and forty-eight in the 1910 
census. 

Senator Reed. Now, can or does the traffic between a city of 750,000 people 
and a town of 15,000 people bear any relation to the traffic existing between two 
large cities like St. Louis and Kansas City? 

Mr. Sangster. As to local traffic, absolutely none. 

Senator Reed. Now, why is that so? 

Mr. Sangster. Well, there is nothing at one end to sustain the traffic; there 
is nothing there that produces traffic and little there to consume traffic. 
Traffic must be built up by factories and large industries and commercial en¬ 
terprises engaged in producing commodities to transport from the place of pro¬ 
duction to the place of consumption. So that corner stone of the structure is 
absent when you take away one end of the route you are making a comparison 
with. 

Senator Reed. In other words, if a railroad was to run from nowhere to some¬ 
where it could not be expected to do the business that a railroad would do that 
ran between two large places? 

Mr. Sangster. Not at all. I may say in that connection that I have here 
certain figures showing the relation of Cairo and Kansas City. 

Senator Reed. I wish you would present them. 

Mr. Sangster. I do not know that the board really needs this information, 
but it may go in if you want to receive it. 

Senator Reed. I would like to have it, because I think this is all there is of 
this report, and I speak respectfully of the report. 

Mr. Sangster. In the year 1914 the population of Cairo was 15,392; the 
population of Kansas City was 376,1S2. including both Kansas Cities. In 1913 
the assessed valuation of Cairo was $3,652,930; Kansas City, Mo., on the basis 
of 50 per cent, and Kansas City, Ivans., on the basis of 100 per cent, taken 
together $269,187,437. The .clearings for 1914 were Cairo, none, no clearing 
house; Kansas City, $3,015,000,000. Bank reserves 1915, Cairo, $4,473,650- 

Col. Winslow (interrupting). Not this comparison you are making on the 
supposition that Cairo would be the only terminus of that traffic from St. Louis 
down that portion of the Mississippi River to the Ohio? 

Mr. Sangster. We are left by the report to take that as a fact. 

Col. Winslow. Is not that portion of the route only a section of a through 
route down the entire Mississippi River? 

Mr. Sangster. Presumably so. 

Chairman Black. It is so understood by the board. The board does not con¬ 
sider that as traffic between St. Louis and Cairo; it is simply a reach of the 
river on a through route. 

Col. Newcomer. Connecting with the lower Mississippi River and the Ohio? 

Senator Reed. I understand that is in the report. I would like for the sake of 
having it go in the record to have these figures in, because I might not reason 
on this just as the board does, but I hope to do so. I am coming to another 
matter to supplement this in a moment. It will only take a moment to put 
this in. 

Mr. Sangster. Bank reserves, Kansas City, $185,000,000. Area in acres, 
Cairo, 1,440; Kansas .City, -1S.000. 

I have spoken here only of Kansas City, Mo., in all reports, except as to 
population. 

Number of factories in 1909, Cairo, 56; Kansas City, 1,067. Total employed, 
Cairo, 1,444; Kansas City, 32,984. Capital utilized, Cairo, $4,853,881; Kansas 
City, $85,546,000. Value of manufactured products, Cairo, $4,440,148; Kansas 
City, $218,786,000. 

Senator Reed. Now, coming to the question of freight rates, you have stated 
there is a break in freight rates at St. Louis for westbound traffic, and that 
the rate becomes much higher from St. Louis west than from St. Louis east; 




MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 291 


what is the fact with reference to the railroad rates from St. Louis south; is 
there the same break in rates? 

Mr. Sangstek. Do you want to know the relation of Cairo to St. Louis as a 
rate-breaking point,'east and south? 

Senator Reed. Yes. 

Mr. Sangster. St. Louis takes 170 per cent of the New York-Chicago stand¬ 
ard all-rail rate; Cairo takes 120 per cent. Coming west the rate St. Louis to 
Kansas City, first class, is GO cents; Cairo, 80 cents. I can give you all these 
five classes, but the lower classes are in relation to the first class. The traffic 
authorities there are New York Central & Hudson River, A-25,000, I. C. C. 
B-18,971; western trunk lines, 1-1. C. C. A-602. 

St. Louis to Wichita, first class, $1.10; Cairo to Wichita, first class, $1,191. 
Authority, Western Tunk Line Tariff 33-D, I. C. C. 3866. 

From Cairo to Memphis, first class,.50 cents; St. Louis to Cairo, first class, 
65 cents. The local rate from St. Louis to Cairo is, first class, 37.9 cents. That 
would indicate that the through rate from St. Louis is less than the Cairo 
combination by the difference in through rate and the local rate from St. Louis 
to Cairo. The tariff authorities there are M. P. Washburn, agent, Mississippi 
River Points Tariff 7, I. C. C. 119; C. E. Fulton, agent, Joint Freight Tariff 
108-E, I. C. C. A-108. 

The rates from St. Louis to Birmingham and Atlanta and from Cairo are not 
different in their construction to the rates given to Memphis; that is to say, the 
through rate from St. Louis is much less than the combination of locals on 
Cairo. 

Senator Reed. So, if I understand you correctly, while there is this distinct 
and decided break in rates from St. Louis to Kansas City, there is no such 
decided break on the traffic from St. Louis south along the river? 

Mr. Sangster. There is no absolute break in the rates upon any general 
traffic at Cairo. There are certain exceptions. 

Senator Reed. I am speaking of it generally. 

Mr. Sangster. No, sir. 

Senator Reed. So there is not the same inducement to put boats on the Mis¬ 
sissippi River by reason of railroad rates as there is on the Missouri River be¬ 
tween Kansas City and St. Louis? 

Mr. Sangster. In a word, here is a different set of railroads leading from the 
East to the Mississippi River to the set of railroads leading from the Mississippi 
River to the Missouri River and beyond. The rates break there and the trans- 
portaton divides itself and the traffic is freed, you might say, to be transported 
thence via the Missouri River from St. Louis to Kansas City locally and for be¬ 
yond. And the same eastbound as to grain and grain products which make upon 
the combination of local rates from western territory to Kansas City, and Kansas 
City to the Mississippi River, and thence beyond and to the southeast. 

From St. Louis to Memphis and vice versa the railroads are the same 
through, and thereby hangs a tale. Cairo is served by four different railroads; 
on the east side the Mobile & Ohio and the Illinois Central; on the west by the 
Cotton Belt and the Missouri Pacific. The east-side lines are the Illinois Cen¬ 
tral, which has a branch line into Cairo, and the Mobile & Ohio, the main line. 
These lines leading up to and west of the Mississippi River are main trunk 
lines and their character is different at the Missouri River again and changes 
as it does substantially at the Mississippi River. We have the Chicago, Mil¬ 
waukee & St. Paul, the Great Western, and the Chicago & Alton lines which 
reach the Missouri River from the east, which do not go west, and therefore we 
have a traffic situation and a rate adjustment conformable to the drift of the 
Misouri River and the course of it in this terrtory, which is not true of the 
Mississippi River between any local points from St. Louis south or north. 

Senator Reed. Have I asked you the general question, if a comparison Ifhsed 
on the Mississippi River between St. Louis and Cairo furnishes any criterion 
by which you can judge either the present or the prospective business of the 
Missouri River? 

Mr. Sangster. Not that I can see. 

Senator Reed. How many years have you been engaged in this business of 
stuJ.ving traffic? 

Mr. Sangster. Seventeen years. 

Senator Reed. What, in your opinion, is the effect of the construction of the 
Panama Canal upon the rate situation in the great Central West? 

Mr. Sangster. The Middle States to-day, with the low port-to-port rates, 
may take advantage of the rates from thence to seaboard, plus the water-service 


292 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


rates around by the canal, and effect a substantially lower rate than this sec¬ 
tion of the country. The rates between ilie Missouri River States and this 
territory, and either the Atlantic or Gulf ports, are so much higher relatively 
that we are entirely without the zone of sea influence and without reach of the 
Panama Canal. This territory can only transport traffic by water to and from 
the Pacific coast by means of the Missouri River; it can not do so by rail in 
competition with the traffic moving from port to port and tributary to the 
Atlantic coast. 

Senator Reed. Do you then regard the continuance of the improvement of the 
Missouri River as of vital importance, not only to the State of Missouri, but to 
the entire Southwest and a large portion of the West and Northwest? 

Mr. Sangster. I consider it so from the standpoint of the trans-Mississippi 
Valley. 

Chairman Black. Senator, may I ask a question? 

Senator Reed. Certainly. 

Chairman Black. The previous answer of the witness as to the necessity of 
the navigation of the Missouri River for the purpose of affording transporta¬ 
tion to the Pacific coast seems to be predicated on the use of the Mississippi 
River as well as the Missouri River. His answer as to the question of com¬ 
petition to the Pacific coast seems to be based on the use of water transportation 
on the Mississippi River as well as the Missouri. He does not mean he would 
have water transportation to St. Louis and then rail to New Orleans? 

Senator Reed. No. I will ask this question, whether the water transportation 
from Kansas City to St. Louis does not tend to mitigate the disadvantage 
to that extent? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes; because the rates between St. Louis and New Orleans 
are very much less per mile than the rates between Kansas City and New 
Orleans, and it goes to the question of whether the rate of 80 per cent of the 
rail rat? from Kansas City to St. Louis plus the rate by rail from there to New 
Orleans would so reduce the charge to that port as to enable us to meet the 
rates from the Atlantic coast to the Pacific, and I doubt that. I think this must 
be in connection with river transportation from the mouth of the Missouri River 
to the Gulf. 

Chairman Black. That is what I wanted to get in the record; that was 
not clear. 

Senator Reed. Could through rates be put in from Kansas City to either coast 
provided there was river transportation? 

Mr. Sangster. Yes, sir. I might say that the alternative to the Mississippi 
River transportation would be the route through the Illinois River and the 
Illinois & Michigan Drainage Canal and the Great Lakes to the Atlantic coast. 

Col. Abbot. I would like to ask—all this argument is based, as I understand 
it, largely on the statement that the sea-route charge from New Orleans to the 
Pacific coast, through the canal, is the same as from New York. Is it not 
possible to rectify that evident misproportion of charges, and if that was done 
would it not let in the central portion of the country in a very different rela¬ 
tionship from what you have just been describing? 

Mr. Sangster. Even if the rate were the same from Kansas City and the 
Missouri River as from New York by rail to the Pacific coast, that would 
not mitigate the disadvantage to the interior as against the Atlantic manufac¬ 
turers and products and commerce. The fact is that the rates via the Panama 
Canal have been so radically lower from coast to coast that there is no com¬ 
parison between the present relationship of the rates made by the railroads 
under the permission granted by the Interstate Commerce Commission and the 
coast-to-coast water rates, and the prior relationship when the goods were 
transshipped across the Isthmus. That will continue a bar on the interior 
until’ we have an outlet to tidewater and a direct connection, in my opinion. 

Senator Reed. I think that is all. 

Mr. Sangster. I might add, Mr. Senator, one more thought with respect to 
the traffic conditions between the rivers here, the Mississippi River and the 
Missouri River. In the State of Kansas case the Interstate Commerce Com¬ 
mission found that the density of tonnage was 870,000 gross tons per mile 
of these railroads. Now, the density of that tonnage should be taken in con¬ 
nection with the previous statements upon the comparison of the Missouri River 
with the stretch of the Mississippi River which is used in the report, because 
it is well established that the three branch lines, as I have said, which serve 
Cairo and that locality have comparatively small tonnage. 

(Witness excused.) 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 293 


W. F. Decker, called as a witness, testified: 

Congressman Borland. You are president of the Commercial Club of Min¬ 
neapolis and chairman of their River Improvement Association? 

Air. Decker. I could have said that a week ago, but my term expired last 
Friday. I have been a member of the development committee for the last 
three years and have made quite a study of the different questions. 

Congressman Borland. Upon the different watercourses you have investi¬ 
gated? 

Mr. Decker. Yes; I have been all through the Mississippi Valley. 

Congressman Borland. And investigating terminals? 

Mr. Decker. Yes. I can say that I have been at school for the last three 
years trying to learn what I could learn about this matter, and the best school 
I have been able to find is right here in Kansas City. The experience of Kansas 
City and the experience of Mr. Dickey’s company here have been the best object 
lesson that we could possibly have; and the company especially has been very 
courteous and generous with their information, and we have profited by it 
very largely. 

Mr. President and gentlemen of the board, 1 can say about all I have to say 
in very few words, and I know the board is familiar with the work that is 
being done between Minneapolis and St. Paul, a distance of 600 miles from this 
project; but we are interested in the development of the whole Mississippi 
Valley, and we would feel it was a great calamity to have this work cease on 
the Missouri River. We regard that as a very important branch of the Mis¬ 
sissippi system, and it will he of great service to us, of course, as we get navi¬ 
gation to Minneapolis, to be able to have a channel to Kansas City. We are a 
producing point and the Southwest is one of our best markets, especially for 
farm machinery. We make a great many tractors and machinery of that kind 
which can go down the Mississippi River and up the Missouri River to Kansas 
City; and that probably would he the chief product that we would send in this 
direction. Of course our grain and flour goes east and west mostly—mostly 
east, down through the Lakes. So that the river is not, probably, going to 
help us so much in that line. But they are making a great many products 
that are used in Minneapolis and a large output of Minneapolis that naturally 
goes north and south ; of course not so much as going east and west, but we 
expect to use the river very largely when the Government improvement is com¬ 
pleted. 

Now our city has taken this much interest in this navigation problem. We 
have not had a boat to Minneapolis in 50 years. In the early days the boats 
used to come up there and some of our early merchants took their goods from 
Pittsburgh to Minneapolis all the way by water. But after the sawmills got 
started there and filled up the channels with edgings and sawdust, and after 
the railroads came, they ceased to use the river; but now the Government is 
spending $2,000,000 between the two cities, and when the high dam is com¬ 
pleted at Fort Snelling we will have a good channel to Minneapolis and any 
boat able to navigate anywhere on the Mississippi system will he able to come 
to Minneapolis and we will he at the head of navigation on the main river. I 
might say that that work by the Government is about 90 per cent completed, 
and we expect some time next year to he enjoying the benefit of navigation. 

The city has gone this far: $300,000 of bonds have been authorized for ter¬ 
minal purposes and the city has already expended over $100,000 in adding to 
its area—the old levee was very small; and they have purchased 24 lots ad¬ 
ditional to that and have built a wall 1,340 feet long, which is entirely com¬ 
pleted, and now the grading is being done, and as fast as commerce develops 
terminal facilities will be provided. 

Our people feel, as Kansas City people feel, I think, that these developments 
should go on gradually as the need is apparent. We will have the harbor and 
the wall all complete and plenty of ground to make the development, and the 
city is disposed to put in terminal facilities and handling facilities as they are 
needed. And we are disposed to go right ahead with that work and we would 
feel it a very great calamity if anything should happen to prevent the develop¬ 
ment of any part of the system, especially this channel to Kansas City. 

judge Bland. You have already taken steps to acquire your terminal ground 

there? 

Mr. Decker. Yes; it has already been purchased. 

Judge Bland. Yes; you showed it to me. 

Mr. Decker. We have an area of about 6 acres, including the marginal streets. 
Those are already improved. 


294 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Judge Bland. Right in the central part of Minneapolis? 

Mr. Decker. Well, it is at the foot of Washington Avenue, one of our principal 
streets. 

(Witness excused.) 

Judge Bland. In order that we may adjourn promptly, I will suggest that 
while I intended to testify myself, I can probably put it better in writing, under 
the permission of the board. Senator Reed wants to say something and per¬ 
haps Mr. Borland and perhaps myself if we have time. We can proceed with 
the arguments at the convenience of the board. 

Chairman Black. Very well, we will be glad to hear you. 

Senator Reed. If the board please, I am very sorry that Judge Bland is not 
to give formal testimony here. There is no man in Kansas City that has 
studied these subjects more closely than he has. I am very sorry that we have 
so few minutes left, because I wanted to present this matter in a broader way 
than it can he presented by a single witness testifying with reference to a 
single point. What I say is a mere skeleton outline. 

First, it lias been asked how it happened that this project of the improve¬ 
ment of the Missouri River, which has been reported on three times, is again 
brought before a board of engineers. I can answer that and answer it at first¬ 
hand. 

In the last session of Congress a filibuster occurred in the Senate to prevent 
the passage of the ship purchase bill. The most active member in that filibuster 
was Senator Burton of Ohio. One of the means employed was to discuss the 
rivers and harbors bill at great length, Mr. Burton delivering himself upon that 
or other subjects, in speeches running from 54 hours to, I believe, 134 hours 
in length. There was the fixed determination to defeat that bill, which con¬ 
sumed the time up to the very last days of Congress, and Congress adjourned 
by operation of law on the 4th of March. It therefore became apparent that 
we could not, in the face of any opposition whatsoever, pass even a general 
appropriation for the rivers and harbors. Any one man could stand up and 
talk the bill to death. Under those circumstances Mr. Burton insisted on 
adding this clause demanding the reexamination of certain rivers, and served 
notice upon us that unless that clause went in he would talk the entire bill to 
death ; and he had it in his power so to do. He said to me personally that 
unless it went in he proposed to fight the bill to the extent of his ability, and we 
all knew what that meant. 

Therefore, simply because we had to pass a supply bill, it was passed in this 
form; and I do not believe there was another man in the Senate of the United 
States that wanted a resubmission of a matter that had been three times passed 
upon by boards of engineers. The project had also been formally approved by 
Congress after full consideration in the Commerce Committee and by the Com¬ 
mittee on Rivers and Harbors in the House and by both Houses of Congress, so 
that is the reason that we are here to-day. 

The second observation I want to make is, and I criticize nobody, but I wish 
to say that no hearings were given upon this project by Col. Deakyne. The 
facts are that this bill passed Congress on the 4th of March. It was signed on 
the 4th of March. On the 8th of April Col. Deakyne sent out a notice relating 
to the upper Missouri. On the 22d of April Col. Deakyne made this report 
recommending the overturning of all that Congress had done and all that pre¬ 
vious boards had recommended. No new survey was made; no other investi¬ 
gation made that I know of except such as came to Col. Deakyne from his 
knowledge obtained in working upon the river. The merchants, the manu¬ 
facturers, the shippers, the farmers, were not called before Col. Deakyne to 
gather testimony and present their side of the case. 

I am confident if Col. Deakyne had heard the evidence that has been here 
presented, he would have at least hesitated about making this report or this 
recommendation. Now, I say that without the slightest thought of criticizing 
or speaking unpleasantly. I have had occasion to meet Col. Deakyne on 
numerous occasions numerous times and have always received from him the 
utmost courtesy of treatment as, I think, all our other people have. 

Now, I come to this report. I had intended to point out what I considered 
the improper premise from which Col. Deakyne proceeds and to show that in 
many respects this premise was faulty ; but in the little time that I have here 
I want to emphasize this fact and challenge this hoard to read Col. Deakyne’s 
report and then answer me the question whether the solitary reason that he 
advances for the abandonment of the Missouri River is not found in section 
14? And that solitary and only reason is that in his opinion there is not 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 295 


enough business upon the Mississippi River from the little town of Cairo, 
111., to St. Louis, to warrant him in concluding that there will be business 
upon the Missouri River; for he takes the position that we are not to judge 
this project by what has been done, and manifestly that is fair, but by the 
traflic that will come; and he proceeds to say that that traffic will not come, 
solely and only because there is only a little over 288,000 tons moved between 
Cairo and the city of St. Louis. 

Now, let’s see. First, the haul is one-half in length ; second, you are haul¬ 
ing to a town that lias no business of any importance. Consequently the 
comparison between the two terminals, the comparison between the two hauls, 
is so utterly out of relation that no man ought to form an opinion in regard to an 
important matter upon any such basis. 

Second, it is shown that there is a break in the railroad rates between St. 
Louis and Kansas City by virtue of which the rate from St. Louis west be¬ 
comes excessively high or exceedingly high, whereas there is no such break 
in railroad rates between Cairo and St. Louis. That one fact alone might 
mean the difference between the establishment of a business upon the river 
and the nonestablishment of a business; and that one fact alone is sufficient 
to cause any prudent man, when it is once.called to his attention, to hesitate 
to act upon it. Why didn’t Col Peakyne—or would it not have been fair for 
Col. Peakyne to find that this project would as manifestly and inevitably be a 
success because river transportation was a success upon the Ohio and be¬ 
cause river transportation was a success upon many rivers? Why is the 
one single failure picked out and used as a demonstration to destroy an enter¬ 
prise in which there are already millions of dollars invested? I am sure that 
Col. Peakyne overlooked these matters. 

Now, I can only mention this. I would like to go into detail and argue it. 
I can argue it so conclusively, if I had the time to put in facts and figures, as 
to show that there is absolutely no parallel between these two matters that 
he lays down as parallels. And with that out of the way there is not a single 
reason advanced back of this report, and it can not be found in the report. 

I call your attention to another thing: When has it happened that the prece¬ 
dent is to be established in this country that before we improve the water¬ 
ways of the country we are going to charge up the interest on the Govern¬ 
ment’s investment against the improvement? When has that ever happened 
before in the history of the United States? Have we done it in the improve¬ 
ment of the river? Pid we do it when we built the Panama Canal? Have we 
done if when we improved our harbors, or have we taken the bigger and broader 
view that that work makes for commerce and pays back to the Government 
of the United States in the general benefit and in the common weal a thousand¬ 
fold of all we expend? 

Then I call attention to another thing that Col. Peakyne says. He says we 
are going to keep snag boats on this river. Why keep snag boats on this river 
or spend $40,000 to keen a snag boat on a river that we are going to abandon? 
I confess, speaking with the utmost respect and at the same time with that 
candor which the circumstances demand, that an analysis of this report is 
all that is necessary to set the report aside. 

Now, I want to speak of this question from a broader standpoint in the 
moment or two that I may still have. The gentleman who puts himself in 
the way of the improvement of the rivers and harbors and transportation 
facilities of the United States to-day, puts himself in the way of the great 
tide that is moving with resistless force and that will never stop until this 
Nation shall have (lone its full duty by the people of the Nation. We are going 
to connect the Great Lakes with the Gulf as inevitably as we are going ulti¬ 
mately, each of us, to our graves. It is so written in the hearts of the people 
of the United States, and there is not a community in the United States that 
has a live man in it that does not know that fact. Commerce must go back 
upon these rivers and upon these great waterways for two fundamental 
reasons: 

First, the railroads have proven themselves inefficient to carry the commerce 
of this * country at all times and at all seasons. No less an authority than 
.lames J. Hill can be cited in proof of that. Mr. Hill told this country some 
three or four years ago that it would require the double-tracking of nearly 
all the railroads of the United States to handle the commerce of the United 
States, and that the outlet, and the proper outlet, was the rivers of the country. 
He certainly is not an enemy of the railroads. 


296 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Second, it is necessary to have competition between water and rail, in order 
that two things may result, first, that there shall be a lowering of rates, and 
particularly that there shall be a lowering of rates upon those coarse articles, 
or slow freights, that can be carried upon water cheaper than they can be 
carried upon railroads. 

Now, we come to the question of the Panama Canal. I put it to this com¬ 
mittee whether there is any justification to be found in the logic or any reason 
for building a canal hundreds of miles from our shores for the purpose of 
encouraging ocean transportation, and then having that canal, which must be 
paid for by the taxes of all the people of the United States, including the 
people of the Central West, so utilized as to destroy the industries of this great 
Central West. And I put it to you whether the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. 
McAdoo, was not right when he said, in Kansas City a few days ago, that it 
was inexcusable—he said it in substance, not in words—to try and stop the im¬ 
provement of these rivers, but that the Missouri and the Mississippi Rivers ought 
to be extended to and through the Panama Canal. 

I have one further observation to make. You can not successfully improve 
the Mississippi River and restore commerce upon it without having some care 
of the Missouri River, first, because the commerce can not be maintained on 
short stretches of river successfully. 

If commerce is to be restored to the rivers it must be restored as a great sys¬ 
tem, and the marvel and miracle of it all is that we have come so nearly being 
able here to maintain a boat line simply between Kansas City and St. Louis. 
What a difference there would be in our traffic arrangements if boats were ply¬ 
ing upon the Mississippi, and what poor logic it is to say that because boats 
are not now upon the Mississippi River that they never will be there. You 
might as well kill the Missouri River, or have killed it a few years ago, by 
saying there ought to be boats on the Missouri and there are none there. 
There must be a start made, and a start has been made here by our citizens, 
and their hard money has gone into this, and it went in under what is substan¬ 
tially a contract with the Government of the United States, for the Government 
said, “ Go back and put the boats on the river, and we will then give you the im¬ 
provements.” 

Now, I have one further observation to make. You can not pour the silt of 
the Missouri River, with its unprotected banks, into the Mississippi River with¬ 
out causing great difficulty. I merely call attenton to that. This board of 
engineers knows that question very thoroughly. If you were to take Col. 
Deakyne’s report and adopt it, and let all the revetment work and all the dam 
work be swept out of the Missouri, as it will be in a few years if not further 
protected, you will simply have acres and acres of this soil melted into that 
stream and borne down into the Mississippi. 

The question, therefore, is, Are you going to abandon all river transportation? 
There is scarcely any river in the United States to-day that, if you took Col. 
Deakyne’s method of figuring and charged up the interest of the Government 
money and charged up no benefits on the other side that would arise through 
equalization of railroad rates, figuring only one side of the problem, there is 
scarcely a river in the United States that you would not have to abandon, if 
you consistently followed that logic—scarcely one. If it is proposed to strike a 
deathblow to this enterprise, then understand that that logic will drive you to 
a similar course upon all or nearly all the other rivers of the United States. 

Now, we have reached a point where we are about to build up this great work. 
The Government has expended its millions of dollars, and I say that to under¬ 
take at this time to assassinate this project is to assassinate the enterprise of 
the great Central West. I have this further observation to make, and I put it 
to you Army engineers who have been the schoolboys in the past in the schools 
of the Government of the United States and have devoted your lives to this 
service, whether there are not other questions that can be justly taken into 
consideration, if, indeed, there is any doubt about this question. 

First, a question that has nothing to do with military matters, but whether, 
when you come to improve a stream for commerce, while that is primarily the 
reason for the improvement, you can not but take into consideration the fact 
that that improvement, made for the benefit of commerce, will also result for 
the benefit of the wealth and agriculture and resources of a country. Certainly, 
if it does so result it ought not to be an argument against the enterprise. 

But I present another view to you, and that is that this Government is 
directly interested in these streams, from the standpoint of the great question 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 297 


of the protection of the Government itself. We have arrived at the birth, ap¬ 
parently, of a new policy in the United States—that of increasing our armament, 
increasing our Navy, increasing our Army, so that we may protect this land if 
it is assaulted from without. Do I need to suggest, then, to a board of Army 
engineers that it is a question to be vitally considered, whether these great 
arteries that run from the Gulf of Mexico clear to the Rocky Mountains will be 
opened to business and commerce, and whether that is of importance to our 
Government and to our people? 

If a foreign enemy was to land upon the Atlantic coast and was to secure 
the possession of the terminals of the railroads there, and if it was necessary 
for us to get provisions either in or out or supplies in or out, how gladly would 
we welcome a lleet of boats sailing between the protected banks of the Missis¬ 
sippi and the Missouri Rivers. When you come to the movement of great 
bodies of troops for the protection of this country, how gladly would you men 
in such an hour as that turn to these great streams if you had a fleet of boats 
upon them and how you would regret the fact that because somebody could 
not figure out in dollars and cents the interest upon the Government’s money, 
that you had allowed these streams to go into disuse. I do not propose to 
pursue that matter, because I think the suggestion of it to men who have 
studied matters military is all sufficient. 

Then I have this further and final thought. We are constantly being tested 
here by what we have done. By what we have done upon what? A stream 
admittedly unfit for navigation; upon a stream which we are told is not worthy 
of the expenditure necessary to make it navigable. And yet we are tested 
by what we had to accomplish on that. It reminds me of the old story: 

Mother, may I *ro out to swim? 

Oh, yes, my darling daughter ; 

Just hang your clothes on a hickory limb, 

But don't go near the water. 

The poor girl was expected to learn to swim without getting to the place 
where she could swim; and we have been required to put a boat line upon 
this river with all its snags, with all its obstructions, with all its difficulties, 
and utterly unfit for commerce; and we are being tested as to our swimming 
capacity to-day under all those circumstances. I will say this project, gentle¬ 
men, has been approved by Congress; it bas been approved in spirit time 
and time again; it has been reported on by our Army engineers, and has 
received the approval of those who have given it exhaustive examination. It 
has been approved after full hearing, such as had been had by this board, not 
the mere opinion inadvised of just one man. Now, I do not reflect upon his 
intelligence or upon his candor or upon his manhood or his honesty;-but I 
do say no man carries around in the dome of his brain all there is of informa¬ 
tion or all there is of knowledge. No man should undertake to settle these 
questions without such a hearing as you have had here. We have had one 
day’s time—nearly two days now—and you have been most patient; but we 
could stand here from now until next January heaping up the kind of evi¬ 
dence that has been put in before this board ; and I say to you that when you 
come to consider this matter, and I am appealing not alone for Kansas City, 
not alone for the State of Missouri, but for the great West and Southwest, 
which find in Kansas City and St. Louis the two great markets to which they 
go for all their supplies and for the markets where they sell that which they 
produce—i am appealing in the name of New Mexico, I am appealing in the 
name of Oklahoma, I am appealing in the name of Kansas, I am appealing 
in the name of Nebraska, I am appealing in the name of northern Texas—all 
that vast stretch of territory, a domain that is almost inconceivable and that 
finds its freight situation and its future destiny as a manufacturing and indus¬ 
trial and distributing country dependent upon transportation rates. 

I say to you, let us have this thing settled once and for all. It is true, as 
has been urged by these men, that the security of the matter is essential and 
absolutely essential to business investment; and I did not think at the time 
that we allowed this amendment to go on in the Senate of the fact that it would 
so stir up in the minds of our business men a feeling of unrest and suspicion, 
and cause them to delay, as it has caused them to delay, or I would almost 
have been willing to have accepted Mr. Burton’s challenge, and let the bill fail, 
even although the President would have been compelled to call Congress in 
extra session. If we can have it once and for all settled that the Missouri is 
to be improved, that the Mississippi is to be improved, and that men can invest 


298 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


their thousands or their millions upon an absolute assurance that the ques¬ 
tion is forever settled and at rest, I say to you that the necessities—the busi¬ 
ness necessities, the economic necessities—coupled with the enterprise of the 
people of this country, will put boats back upon the river, and we will have a 
real river transportation. (Applause.) 

Congressman Borland. Mr. President and members of the board, I had in¬ 
tended to call attention to a few points in summing up- 

Chairman Black. Go ahead. 

Congressman Borland. I do not wish to trespass upon the patience of the 
board, but with your indulgence I will say a few words. 

This summing up of Senator Reed’s has so thoroughly and forcibly covered 
the ground that it has made unnecessary the further presentation of the 
evidence. 

You are here to reexamine the river by virtue of the provision of the act of 
March 4, 1915, that the Missouri River be examined according to law, with a 
view to determining whether this improvement project should be modified or 
abandoned. It might be assumed from that, and very naturally was assumed, 
that some conditions had occurred since the adoption of the river-improvement 
project by Congress that had shown the inadvisabifity of that adoption. I 
think it is more proper to assume, not being in the confidence of those who 
drew the amendment, but being in confidence more myself of those who must 
have voted for it, that it was more advisable to assume that Congress desired 
to know from an engineering standpoint the success of the project it had 
adopted. Because if this hearing has demonstrated anything to this board it 
has demonstrated that not a single factor upon which Congress relied in its 
adoption of the project has either been modified or disappeared from the 
situation. 

Congress acted not hastily nor casually nor in a blanket measure, but acted 
upon the Missouri River proposition deliberately and after a careful examina¬ 
tion and reexamination of the facts that justify it. This agitation was begun in 
1907, continued before Congress in 1908, continued again in 1909, when I be¬ 
came a Member of Congress. By 1910 we bad the report of the district officer, 
Capt. Schulz, and then Congress did not adopt the project, on account of the op¬ 
position of those who were opposed to the improvement of the Missouri River, 
but authorized a reexamination from an engineering standpoint of the feasibility 
and propriety of the improvement. And after that careful foundation has 
been laid and the report of that reexamination has been received, Congress, in 
1912, adopted the project. Therefore, it has not proceeded without the most 
ample consideration of the factors entering into it. Those factors were based 
upon the prospective commerce and the tonnage of nearly a decade ago—the 
figures of 1906, compiled by the district officer and embraced in his report. 
Those figures never reached to exceed 5,000,000 tons of freight moving through 
the Kansas City gateway. To-day that tonnage has more than doubled, so that 
factor is more than doubled. 

The distribution of commodities from Kansas City, from St. Louis, has grown 
in comparison. The surplus agricultural products and their value have grown 
in comparison. The relation between the railway carriers and the traffic to be 
carried has become more acute as the years have gone, and every factor that was 
before Congress relating to the commercial importance of the river still exists 
with added importance and added force. And in addition to that is the factor 
that is new in the situation and that so much has been said about—the Panama 
Canal—and which, therefore, I will not dwell upon at this time. 

Now, you have, in addition to that, the opportunity of a hearing that was not 
possible when Congress adopted the project. You have now the test of the river 
from the standpoint of actual navigation upon, as the Senator says, a partially 
improved river, which may not be fit for our navigation. But you have seen the 
eagerness with which the shipping public of Kansas City has seized upon the 
facilities as fast as they were offered; and you have seen that the measure of 
use that they have made of the traffic facilities upon the river has been bounded 
only by the facilities furnished by the single boat line operating upon the river 
here, and that those facilities have been held down; that no extravagance has 
been indulged in by business men in control of that situation and of that com¬ 
pany, but their facilities have proceeded in the most conservative growth, far 
behind the demand of the commercial interests here; that they have not at¬ 
tempted to keep faith with the demand for river transportation by the shipper, 
but that they have held it down to keep themselves within the bounds set by 
the improvement of the river by the Government; that there is no other factor 



MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 299 


holding them down to-day; that if their capital to-day could be all invested in 
boats adapted to the present improvement of the Missouri River, by the time 
the Missouri River was fully improved new capitalization would be needed, 
and that new capitalization, if the present rate of increase keeps up, could 
be raised by additional capital stock or by bond. 

You have seen also that this hearing comes not to a proposed project as the 
consideration of Congress did in 1912, but it comes to a project which has 
demonstrated for three seasons an increasing traffic and a project which has 
solved successfully, as we think, all of the incidental problems necessary to tfie 
successful restoration of river commerce in the United States. You have had 
analyzed in the most careful way, and by men whose words carried the convic¬ 
tion of their ability to speak, tfie factors necessary for the restoration of river 
commerce, the development of terminals, the development of water craft from 
the naval architect’s viewpoint; the development of power in relation to the 
load to be pushed; the development of terminals; the handling by power instead 
of by hand of the freight from boat to dock and dock to boat; the elimination 
of marine insurance; the articulation of the rail-and-water lines; the absorption 
of switching charges to manufacturers and industries not directly located in 
connection with the river terminals; and every one of those factors is just as 
important to the solution of this problem as the maintenance of the channel 
itself; and every one of them depends upon a continued effort, because above 
and beyond all of them is the sustaining power of the confidence of the business 
public that a public channel of transportation has been created and that the 
river has become a permanent factor in the commercial interests of the valley. 

Now, we have not'expected to influence traffic or to pound down rates or to 
perform any legerdemain by the running of a casual boat. Whatever may have 
been done in other cases, we have approached this subject under the firm con¬ 
viction that it was necessary not to make potential water competition, but 
actual water traffic, and the traffic must be based upon a natural and normal 
growth. In other words, the question of sentiment has disappeared from this 
proposition, so far as the shippers of the Missouri Valley are concerned, and 
these boat line officials are willing to approach the business public of the Mis¬ 
souri Valley upon the basis of service, and service alone; and that service is not 
measured by any classification, but includes from the highest to the lowest, 
the most fragile and valuable freight down to the heaviest materials. They 
have covered the entire subject. They have gone completely through the list of 
freight and analyzed business conditions to adapt water transportation to them. 
I will undertake"to say that that evidence has not been before the board in any 
other case. 

Now, I simply want to say. in conclusion, and to reiterate what has been said 
so well by the Senator, that this project having been so carefully considered at 
its inception and having been examined by you gentlemen in accordance with 
law under the authority of this act of Congress, if you now, with this all before 
you, disapprove the report of the district officer and find these facts have 
justified the commercial importance of the improvement of the Missouri River 
and of the feasibility of that improvement from an engineering standpoint, you 
will have placed the water transportation of this country upon a firm basis, 
and that is absolutely essential to water transportation in this country. 

The greatest element now entering into successful restoration of water 
competition and water transportation is the confidence of the business public 
that it is becoming, and has become, a permanent feature in their transportation 
arrangements. And as long as this matter is uncertain, as long as it is a 
question of appeals to Congress every .time $1,000,000 or $000,000 or $S00,()00 
is necessary, these men are laboring under a handicap which is almost insur¬ 
mountable and which would not have been surmounted but for the spur of 
necessity that has been upon them. They have sacrificed their own means and 
risked their own capital to demonstrate to the country the necessity of this 
and the possibility of it. and they are now at some stage entitled to a confident 
report, justifying and putting upon a firm basis the efforts toward the renewal 
of water transportation in this country; and an adverse report will have pre¬ 
cisely the opposite effect. It will have the effect of blighting water transporta¬ 
tion in every line in this country. Inland water transportation depends upon 
the decision in tfie Missouri case, and nothing could exemplify that more than 
the universal and keen interest which has been taken by the gentlemen who 
have come here clear from Minneapolis and from New Orleans and from Joliet 
to this hearing at Kansas City, not because they are not commercial rivals of 
Kansas City, but because they realize very fully as business men that upon 


300 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


the fate of this hearing depends the fate of inland waterways in the United 
States; and no man here, following the language of the Waterways Commission, 
Senator Burton’s commission, and the language of James J. Hill, “ No man 
here can measure the expansion of American commerce.” 

If we had been asked in 1906 to guarantee that there would be 11,000,000 
tons of traffic through the Kansas City gateway instead of 5.000,000, there 
would not have been a man who would have risked his reputation in making 
such an assertion. If any man had been asked 25 years ago to estimate the 
railroad tonnage of the traffic ways of the Mississippi, there is not a man 
would have risked his reputation by naming the sum which is now actually 
carried. If any man who was connected with the transcontinental railroads, 
the land-grant railroads, had been asked to say how much those roads would 
have carried in the next quarter of a century after they were built, not a man 
would have been wild enough to have come within hailing distance of the truth. 
Commerce follows facilities. The time has long gone by when commerce must 
precede facilities. Facilities create commerce, and they have created commerce 
in this case. And we could pile up here evidence for a week of business men 
here who have adapted their business to the creation of this very facility. We 
have two cases here at Waverly, Mo., about prospective manufacturing industry 
moving from New Haven, Conn., based entirely upon the facilities to be fur¬ 
nished by the boat-line company. So we ask of you after this hearing certain 
findings of fact which I am going to ask leave to submit to the board and which 
we believe are fully justified by the evidence. If justified by the evidence, 
they will result in permanent approval of this proposed improvement and its 
speedy and successful completion by the Government. [Applause.] 

Mr. Dickey. Just a few moments. We want to hear from Judge Bland, the 
chairman of our committee. 

Judge Bland. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the board, I shall take but a 
moment of your time and will eliminate anything that might go into detail. 

You have heard from our Senator and from our Congressman. I am a part 
of the business element of this community—a wholesaler—and I think I am 
acquainted with the business conditions. I have been interested in this project 
ever since its first inception. I want to present a bird’s-eye view of the situa¬ 
tion in which we are and leave it, if you will grant me a few moments of your 
time. 

Rebates were given to large shippers, running from 25 to 40 per cent, some 
years ago. As a matter of fact, it is of such common knowledge that the courts 
would take judicial notice. The statute of limitations has run, and I can make 
that statement; but it is a fact that large concerns received throughout this 
territory rebates from the railroads to the extent of 25 to 40 per cent, and 
presumably the roads made money upon that basis, and that was upon the vast 
tonnage of freight that came into this territory. 

When those rebates were withdrawn we were confronted, not with an 
accentuated condition resulting from the completion of a Panama Canal, but 
were confronted with rates to which we had not been accustomed, and which 
established a new basis on which we had to do business in this territory. That 
applied to factories and wholesale houses. The business element then com¬ 
menced to cast about for relief from that condition and looked toward the 
Missouri River; and we then presented the matter to Congress after repeated 
visits to Washington and to the Rivers and Harbors Committee, and I have here 
the printed proceedings that were had before the Rivers and Harbors Com¬ 
mittee, and we were asked by Mr. Cassidy, who was from Mr. Burton’s district 
and succeeded him in Congress, “ Suppose we appropriate $1,000,000 or 
$2,000,000 or $10,000,000 to the Missouri River, what assurance then is there 
that any practical benefit will result or that you will make use of that river?” 
And we said to him then that the word “ failure ” had never been written after 
any concerted effort by the citizens of Kansas City in undertaking and con¬ 
summating any great public movement, and we assured him then that we would 
return to Kansas City, and the hearing was on the 5th of April, 1910, and would 
raise the minimum capital of $1,000,000, which was then contemplated for the 
establishment of terminals and equipping boats and barges. They appropriated 
$1,000,000 upon the recommendation of the Rivers and Harbors Committee. 

Within 25 days after the hearing before the Rivers and Harbors Committee 
we had begun the campaign to raise this capital of $1,000,000. It commenced on 
March 1, 1910, and 30 days after—on March 31—the subscriptions had reached 
$1,238,000, and that promise was redeemed. And in this same connection let 
me say this, that if the improvement of the Missouri is continued after we have 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 301 


a completed or finished channel, and if we have not sufficient equipment, and if 
we have demonstrated, as I believe every member of this board believes, and 
must believe, that we have demonstrated, that we can operate this river suc¬ 
cessfully at a profit with 20 per cent freight differential. If we demonstrate 
that, as we believe and know we can, there will be no trouble in again appeal¬ 
ing to the business interests of Kansas City and the manufacturing interests, 
and the interests adjacent, to increase that capital and purchase boats that 
will not only operate to carry to the maximum of our capacity now—about 
700,000 tons—but double that capacity. So that the question of capital will be 
eliminated, provided that we are given a completed channel. We have not the 
slightest misgiving about that. Conditions now are not as they were when we 
started out on the campaign. We have convinced our people—our manufac¬ 
turers, our wholesalers, our bankers—that we can operate on this river and can 
do it successfully. 

With business men of the type of Mr. Dickey and these others whom you 
have seen here—and they are wholesalers and manufacturers who have given 
their time—and you have before you the accumulated weight of the opinion of 
nil those men, because they would not have subscribed the money and made the 
effort unless they were convinced this could be a successful undertaking. You 
have got that opinion; the best evidence of a man’s opinion is that he invests his 
money in and engages in an undertaking. That shows his conviction that it is 
a practicable undertaking. And it is not only practicable, but it is absolutely 
vital and imperative to this territory. Now, you have, upon the one side, the 
opinion of all those men, and you have, upon the other side, the opinion of 
the district officer that the commercial possibilities do not justify continuing 
that work. I submit that the preponderance of evidence is all on one side. 

At the time we undertook this campaign, gentlemen, we did not even know 
the type of boats; we did not know the type of barges; we did not know that 
we would use towboats and barges; we did not know but that we might be 
driven to the use of the old texas-deck steamboat; but we were determined to 
carve out the way and to work out a successful result. We had no pilots, no 
lights, no fair river; and I might go into full details, but I do not wish to con¬ 
sume your time. 

But, with that condition then prevailing, we undertook to organize, and did 
organize, that boat line with a view to prevent its purchase by any hostile 
interest at any time in the future. That is prevented absolutely by this sort 
of nn organization: There are $2,000 of common stock held by 13 trustees, rep¬ 
resentatives of the different lines of business in Kansas City. l T ou have seen 
some of the directors here—Mr. Volker, Mr. Smith, Mr. Dickey, and others— 
who have testified here generally. Now, that hoard of directors is self-perpetu¬ 
ating. No man may sell the common stock. If he does, it vests immediately 
in the other 12 trustees, and the other 12 trustees may place the stock in the 
hands of his successor, and that successor will he selected with care and 
judgment. And if it develops at any time that any man occupies a hostile atti¬ 
tude, his stock may be called by the other 12 trustees and placed in the hands 
of another party. * So it is perpetual and continuous only and finally in the 
hands of the 13 trustees. The $1,238,000 of preferred stock has no voting 
power or voice in the management of the corporation. That power is vested 
eternally and everlastingly in the 13 trustees, who are succeeded, as vacancies 
occur upon the board, in the manner that I have suggested. And there is no 
time in the future, proximate or remote, when any hostile interest can ever 
acquire the control or management or manipulation of the boat-line company. 

Now, there is one other reason assigned in the district officer’s report to 
which I wish to call attention as a reason for abandoning the improvement 
of the Missouri River. Without reading it, I will quote it in substance. It 
says that there is no question that towns having water transportation are for 
that reason able to secure lower rates than other places having no water trans¬ 
portation and requiring equal rail haul. It is my understanding that this 
condition is recognized by the Interstate Commerce Commission. And the dis¬ 
trict officer was correct in that. He then argued that it is frequently best that 
if the improvement of the river gives lower rail rates, that would justify the 
improvement, even if the river never carried a ton of freight. This might 
be so if there were no other methods of controlling railroad rates; but in these 
davs when railroads claim that they are being regulated too much there 
appears to be no lack of governmental machinery for controlling them, and it 
does not seem necessary to spend $20,000,000 to bring about a proper rail rate 
between Kansas City and St. Louis. 


302 MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 


Absolutely it is erroneous in its entirety, so far as it refers to the power of 
the Interstate Commerce Commission. You gentlemen know, and I know you 
know, that the Interstate Commerce Commission has no affirmative power on 
earth to compel a railroad to reduce a rate. It can not compel it to reduce 
that rate to meet water competition, hut the privilege may he given to the road 
to reduce the rates to meet water competition. So that you can not bring about 
this adjustment of rates by the action of the Interstate Commerce Commission, 
and the only method that we have to influence that rate or, if it does not influ¬ 
ence the rate, to secure a reasonable rate for the manufacturers and jobbers in 
this great central section of the country, is by the use of the river. If we only 
use it to St. Louis, it will give relief pro tanto; if we use it to the Gulf, it will 
give greater and better relief; but that is the only medium of relief which this 
great central and rich producing area of the United States can resort to. and 
it is the producing area of this country—the greatest producing area in the 
world. It carries in the greater Mississippi Valley the very important centers 
of population, of manufacture, of the production of lead, and all the different 
staple products of the world are right here in this valley. So that here, if it is 
important that the system be improved in any section, in any place, it is more 
important in the greater Mississippi Valley. 

Now, then, if we are deserted at this time, after we have progressed and dem¬ 
onstrated that this enterprise will be a successful one, after we have demon¬ 
strated the absolute and vital necessity of it, and this, too. after we have in¬ 
vested hundreds of thousands of dollars and the Government has invested 
millions of dollars, there could be no greater blight placed upon all this great 
area of country, and it is an infinite responsibility that rests upon the Army 
board and upon Congress if it shall be exercised to the extent of depriving the 
central area of the United States of the benefits which we may enjoy by reason 
of the Panama Canal, and which we may enjoy because the great Creator of 
this country has placed within our reach these avenues and arteries of com¬ 
merce. It is a matter of such serious moment that we can not emphasize it 
sufficiently. We have done everything within our power to secure this result. 
We are very confident that when we are carrying any considerable tonnage, as 
indicated by one of the gentlemen of the board, amounting to several hundred 
thousand tons, that the railroads will recognize us as a vast factor in rate 
making for this territory. There is no question about that. 

As a matter of fact, the testimony before the Interstate Commerce Commis¬ 
sion shows that they are now recognizing us as a factor, and if we carry this 
considerable tonnage there is no question but that we will secure even better 
rates. And if we secure only the rates we are enjoying by the differential estab¬ 
lished by the boat line, it will run into thousands'and thousands of dollars; and 
if we enjoy the other rates by rail, brought about by the competition of the boat 
line, it will run into a sum absolutely astounding and stupendous. So we sub¬ 
mit to you gentlemen upon this full hearing, and we thank you for the courtesy 
and the consideration shown here, that this question is the pivotal one that will 
regulate and determine the question of the future of (he inland waterways of 
this country. The engineering boards of the United States Government have 
always been friends of inland waterway development. And there is a member 
of your board now who was a member of the reviewing board that was sent out 
to examine this project and determine whether or not, from an engineering 
standpoint, it should be approved of, and who reported affirmatively in that 
relation; and Gen. Bixby. Col. Townsend, Col. Abbot, and Col. Keller, and these 
other gentlemen who have been here have investigated the question from an 
engineering standpoint. But we take it now, under this report, with you the 
issue is not an engineering problem but a commercial problem; and we have 
come to you and shown to you this statement of the tonnage possible upon this 
river made by the district officer is entirely erroneous. 

Do any of you gentlemen have any doubt in your minds, after hearing the 
testimony of the heads of these different business houses in Kansas City that 
control the destinies of their respective houses and have made their statements 
and promises before you that they cau give this tonnage to the boat line com¬ 
pany—have you any doubt but that it will receive that tonnage? It is receiving 
it, and with the better improved conditions that will exist when you shall have 
completed this work upon the river, the tonnage will be handled by the boat 
line company to such an extent that it will compel.it to increase its carrying 
capacity. There is no question about that in our minds, and we hope there is 
none in yours. If that be true, then the question of tonnage may be considered 


MISSOURI RIVER FROM KANSAS CITY, MO., TO THE MOUTH. 303 


ns settled in this proposition, and we hope that you gentlemen, when you have 
examined this record and considered it in its entirety, will see the correctness 
of our position, which has never been stronger than it is to-day, and that there 
were never such reasons as there are to-day for the improvement of this river, 
which has been so many times approved by your honorable board, and once by 
Congress itself. [Applause.] 

We are very much obliged to you gentlemen for your patience and considera¬ 
tion and kindness. 

Chairman Black. The meeting is adjourned, and the board is much obliged to 
you gentlemen for the information we have received. 

[For index to above hearing see pages 154 and 155.] 

o 






a. 




































































































t 



















































































O' 

< 5 > 

































































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: March 2011 


PreservationTechnologies 


A WORLD LEADER IN COLLECTIONS PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 


r70A\ *7*7 Cl 


















